NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people equate capitalism (or capitalist-like viewpoints or policies, or just business) with exploitation. And I don't mean because there are exploitive capitalists. People seem to insist that capitalism is DEFINED by how it exploits the workers.

Well, I disagree! I'm not feeling too argumentative right now, so I'll just leave it at that.

There is a poll coming.

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.

I said it exploits others because I don't have a job. Just to clarify.

And don't call me a lazy unemployed bum, I'm only 15. You don't have that right yet. :mad: *pouts*

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

If the worker thinks he can compete with the company then he can start his own pie buissness. Thats freedom my friend.

If the worker thinks he can compete with the company then he can start his own pie buissness. Thats freedom my friend.I don't feel this alters the dynamic of my scenario. Freedom aside, the worker is still intrinsically exploited.

Perhaps I missed something, and we're talking about civil and economic freedom?

1) I write a book

2) Someone wants my book

3) I sell them my book for 100% more than it cost me to make, to cover the materials and the time it took for me to write.

4) I now have four bucks for a light lunch.

Oh no, I have exploited someone. Grar.

1) I write a book

2) Someone wants the right to make copies of my book with their company and sell them

3) I sell them the rights. They sell the book for 100% more than it cost them for materials. 60% of that goes to all the people they hade to hire to put the books together and distribute them, 20% of that goes to the person who invested their life in the company and purchased the rights to print my book, and 10% goes to me. Ten thousand books sell, without any further effort on my part. I have 1,000 light lunches.

Oh no, I am sad. Now I have been exploited as well as the 10,000 people who bought my book. They're now forced to own a book, while I am forced to have more than enough food to eat while I write my next book.

1) I want more light lunches.

2) I write a few more books to sell the rights to, and accumulate some extra lunch money.

3) I use that extra lunch money to start buying some printing equipment, and a PR agent.

4) I use that equipment to print my own book, and get my PR agent to use my good lunch-earning name to ensure my book sells.

5) I write, print, and sell 10,000 books, at 100% more than the material cost. 60% goes to production costs, 30% goes to me, since I'm doing all the other work myself. I earn myself a nice big bunch of lunch.

Oh no, I have exploited MYSELF.

1) My friend writes a book.

2) I want the rights to make copies of their book with my company and sell them

Oh no, now everyone's exploited!

Meh.

Capitalism will only exploit someone if they let it.

The only places you ever have to even worry about exploitation in a caring capitalist country is the staples. We all need certain products without fail, or else we pretty much die. (Food, water, shelter, et cetera)

Everything else is optional.

Exploitation can only happen in those situations because people specifically allow it.

I heard GAP was sweat-shopped based. I refuse to buy GAP clothing, as a result, or Blue Navy, since they're just a branch of the same company.

Other people hear it, go "Grar", then buy a new GAP shirt.

Capitalism just helps to show the true nature of the populace. Sure, they'd PREFER everything be nice and happy, but they don't really CARE.

That's a social issue, not an economic one.

Think of it this way:

Do you think that, if every ten years, a baby was sacrificed to Cthulhu to keep the internet going, the internet would just suddenly be empty?

Think of it this way:

Do you think that, if every ten years, a baby was sacrificed to Cthulhu to keep the internet going, the internet would just suddenly be empty?

"If"?

Yes, capitalism is an unfair and an exploitive(is that a word?) system, where everybody rapes eachother. It's just that communism propably won't work until humans stop being humans. There's always someone to screw up the system.

Now I'm sad. :(

Think of it this way:

Do you think that, if every ten years, a baby was sacrificed to Cthulhu to keep the internet going, the internet would just suddenly be empty?
it's only one baby. that's worth it.

"If"?

Yes, capitalism is an unfair and an exploitive(is that a word?) system, where everybody rapes eachother. It's just that communism propably won't work until humans stop being humans. There's always someone to screw up the system.

Now I'm sad. :(

Forced exploitation is not allowed in Capitalism, so rape is a very, very poor metaphor.

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.

You 'made' the pie. You didn't purchase the oven, the pan, the ingredients or the shop you're making it in. Your wage is the 'full worth' of your work because in reality your work in baking the pie is one of the smaller parts of the equation. Obvious exception exists if you’re a master chief. In which case you’re getting paid considerably more and are still being paid the value of your labor.

"If"?

Yes, capitalism is an unfair and an exploitive(is that a word?) system, where everybody rapes eachother. It's just that communism propably won't work until humans stop being humans. There's always someone to screw up the system.

Now I'm sad. :(

No, it's that humanity as a group (like ANY species, this is sadly a natural thing) is more interested in their own direct surroundings than anything else.

Capitalism is a great system. But, just like communism requires you not care about your wants, capitalism requires that you DO care about the wants of others, if you want either system to work without serious problems.

Exploitation happens because people are more interested in having cheap material goods than they are in making sure the people making those goods are being treated fairly.

Lots of people are upset at how fast food places tend to be so disgusting.
People do not need fast food. They can run in to a grocery store for a sammich, often in about the same amount of time, and the grocery store will often be at least slightly cleaner.

I don't see McDonalds going bankrupt yet.

Ooops.

People don't care.

Hell, look at Wal-Mart.

The fact that its a horribly exploitive company is WELL known. There are MANY other options (At least before Wal-Mart bankrupts all the local shops).

It's still making a fortune.

Because -people- just don't care.

People exist no matter what economic system. Thus, it will ALWAYS suck. Except maybe a necromacy, because then everyone's dead. But that's a little extreme for me.

I don't feel this alters the dynamic of my scenario. Freedom aside, the worker is still intrinsically exploited. No, I believe you are missing the point...

Did you supply the ingredients to make the pie? Did you supply the oven to Bake it? Or pay for the power it took, to make it? Is it your supply chain that sold the pie? Do you think you would be able to sell all the pies you needed to if you did it yourself?

Does the person supplying all of these other things deserve anything for supplying them, and taking the chance that they may not be able to make money at it?

And if you do not feel that your "part" in all of this is being fairly compensated then, as others have already suggested, put up your own money, take your own chances and see if it does pay more...

That is the Freedom they talk about...

Regards,
Gaar

Capitalism is a great system. But, just like communism requires you not care about your wants, capitalism requires that you DO care about the wants of others, if you want either system to work without serious problems.

Capitalism doesn't even require that, as it is assumed that people will look out for their own needs and work to fill them.

Everything else is optional. Exploitation can only happen in those situations because people specifically allow it.

I heard GAP was sweat-shopped based. I refuse to buy GAP clothing, as a result, or Blue Navy, since they're just a branch of the same company. Other people hear it, go "Grar", then buy a new GAP shirt.

Capitalism just helps to show the true nature of the populace. Sure, they'd PREFER everything be nice and happy, but they don't really CARE. That's a social issue, not an economic one.I believe your definition of exploitation is too narrow, and takes only extreme cases of exploitation into account; I'm not even making a normative statement ABOUT this exploitation, though I find it comical that everyone assumes that I consider it bad thing. Heh.

For the kids:
ex·ploi·ta·tion

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.

This has been brought up in this thread several times, but I'll address Urantia's specifics:
Did you supply the ingredients to make the pie? Did you supply the oven to Bake it? Or pay for the power it took, to make it? Is it your supply chain that sold the pie? Do you think you would be able to sell all the pies you needed to if you did it yourself?No, I did not; and although the employer did, technically, I did as well. He sells my pies with which he makes money and uses to buy the ingredients; would I not be able to do this with the money I would make from selling the pies myself? Could I not pay for all of these expenses if I was given the full value of my labor as opposed to a small portion?

Does the person supplying all of these other things deserve anything for supplying them, and taking the chance that they may not be able to make money at it?Again, technically, I'm supplying them. He gets the money from my labor; my "pies." He doesn't get jack without me making pies, and so ultimately I'm the one who has paid for the ingredients, the store, the advertising, all that jazz. Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat. :cool:

And if you do not feel that your "part" in all of this is being fairly compensated then, as others have already suggested, put up your own money, take your own chances and see if it does pay more...

That is the Freedom they talk about...Well, to start, business requires existing capital. Being that the value of all my labor for these past ten years working for The Piemaster has been garnished, I probably don't have enough to start a business.

And this freedom aside, that doesn't change the exploitive nature of capitalism and the wage-earner system.

Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought.

Capitalism doesn't even require that, as it is assumed that people will look out for their own needs and work to fill them.

Capitalism requires you too look out for others wants because you make your cash by fulfilling the needs of others. Well, regulated capitalism does this anyway.

I meant strictly in an idealized manner.

The difference between a nice world and a corrupt world is the people, not the system.

With decent enough people in charge, you can have a happy world with a fricking all-powerful dictator. They'd just have to be very hands-off, caring buggers who left everyone alone.

But there is the issue of staple monopolies.

If all the seed in the country is owned by one group, and they decide to vastly increase the prices, nobody's going to be able to refuse, and that company can own their arses.

Strictly theoretical, and would quickly involve that company being destroyed by angry villagers with torches, pitch forks, and uzis, but still.

If you take away everyone's options, then there's an issue so long as there isn't benevolence.

Which is what historical communism does. It relies entirely on the kindness and good choices of the people in charge, because they OWN everything already.

everything takes some land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.
labor makes the pie, using land(raw materials) and capital(oven, etc) and entrepreneurship puts it all together and finds someone to buy it. all have to be purchased and the labor, naturally, doesnt deserve ALL the money.

the thing about true capitalism is that the only way to get stuff is to provide other stuff. If you feel you are being exploited, dont provide stuff, or charge a higher price. No one will force you to.

capitalism is definitely exploitative, and i have no problem with that. Hopefully i can go through life without getting exploited, and i won't mind conning someone out of their work. For example if I were to hire a maid I'd hire a mexican illegal and pay her nearly nothing. I gotta save my money. I'd shop at Walmart because their stuff is inexpensive, who cares if they don't have unions? that's a bad example anyways, because Walmart pays its workers well and gives them good benefits, most of the time better than competing unionized grocers. My conscience is at peace with the fact that my clothes are made by cheap sweatshop labor in southeast Asia, after all I am saving money. Factory owners are after profit and will therefore seek to pay their workers as little as possible, even if this meager wage is not enough for the worker's basic survival. But that works out for me, the middle class consumer, so I have no complaints.

Of course, if at any time I fall from my current middle class status and become a poor exploited lower class person then I'd condemn capitalism, start voting for socialists so I can hope to leech off of society, and get free shit. now after reading this you are probably thinking that I am a completely selfish, heartless, psychopath, in which case you are probably right.

capitalism is definitely exploitative, and i have no problem with that. Hopefully i can go through life without getting exploited, and i won't mind conning someone out of their work. For example if I were to hire a maid I'd hire a mexican illegal and pay her nearly nothing. I gotta save my money. I'd shop at Walmart because their stuff is inexpensive, who cares if they don't have unions? that's a bad example anyways, because Walmart pays its workers well and gives them good benefits, most of the time better than competing unionized grocers. My conscience is at peace with the fact that my clothes are made by cheap sweatshop labor in southeast Asia, after all I am saving money. Factory owners are after profit and will therefore seek to pay their workers as little as possible, even if this meager wage is not enough for the worker's basic survival. But that works out for me, the middle class consumer, so I have no complaints.

Of course, if at any time I fall from my current middle class status and become a poor exploited lower class person then I'd condemn capitalism, start voting for socialists so I can hope to leech off of society, and get free shit. now after reading this you are probably thinking that I am a completely selfish, heartless, psychopath, in which case you are probably right.
I have no idea as to whether this is satire or serious.

Good job!

I believe your definition of exploitation is too narrow, and takes only extreme cases of exploitation into account; I'm not even making a normative statement ABOUT this exploitation, though I find it comical that everyone assumes that I consider it bad thing. Heh.

For the kids:


This sounds like one of those "I use whichever connotation of the word works best for my argument at the moment" things.

You exploit the air to breath, you exploit the ground to walk on, whee. I exploit my mom for a hug, oh no.



This has been brought up in this thread several times, but I'll address Urantia's specifics:
No, I did not; and although the employer did, technically, I did as well. He sells my pies with which he makes money and uses to buy the ingredients; would I not be able to do this with the money I would make from selling the pies myself? Could I not pay for all of these expenses if I was given the full value of my labor as opposed to a small portion?


What you're suggesting is that the employer took money from the FUTURE of you making pies, before he had ingredients. The employer STARTS the whole thing, bucko. You don't make pies for him until AFTERWARDS unless you're in a partnership.


Again, technically, I'm supplying them. He gets the money from my labor; my "pies." He doesn't get jack without me making pies, and so ultimately I'm the one who has paid for the ingredients, the store, the advertising, all that jazz. Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat. :cool:


You seem to suggest the following makes sense:

1) Bob and Jeb live in a field.

2) Bob, between finding berries to eat, nurses an apple pie tree to health. Jeb focuses wholly on berries.

3) Bob's apple pie tree grows a nice big pie, but Bob has a bad back from stooping over, and can't climb the tree. Bob asks Jeb for help.

4) Jeb climbs up, gets the pie, and eats it all himself.

5) "But Jeb, I wanted half!?" "Too bad, Bob. I did all the work to get the pie."

You fail to see that as messed up?


Well, to start, business requires existing capital. Being that the value of all my labor for these past ten years working for The Piemaster has been garnished, I probably don't have enough to start a business.


Clearly, the piemaster stole your money from the future to start that business.


And this freedom aside, that doesn't change the exploitive nature of capitalism and the wage-earner system.


Or of any other system. Or breathing.


Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought.

If exploit isn't bad, why change?

This has been brought up in this thread several times, but I'll address Urantia's specifics:
No, I did not; and although the employer did, technically, I did as well. He sells my pies with which he makes money and uses to buy the ingredients; would I not be able to do this with the money I would make from selling the pies myself? Could I not pay for all of these expenses if I was given the full value of my labor as opposed to a small portion? So, you will not only get the ingredients, and make the pie, bake it and then find someone to buy it from you?

Or do you believe these things "just happen" for themselves without someone setting up this "network" and supplying the initial Capital to get it going without the guarantee that it will generate an income for him, after paying everyone else in the System who believes, as you do, that they are entitled to the "full worth" of a pie they only "put together"?!?!

Again, technically, I'm supplying them. He gets the money from my labor; my "pies." He doesn't get jack without me making pies, and so ultimately I'm the one who has paid for the ingredients, the store, the advertising, all that jazz. Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat. :cool: Sorry, I know plenty of Business Owners who were their very own first employees and it was by their own sweat that they built the business, but it doesn't surprise me that you would want to take credit for something you yourself are not doing, that seems to be the basis for your side of this discussion.

Well, to start, business requires existing capital. Being that the value of all my labor for these past ten years working for The Piemaster has been garnished, I probably don't have enough to start a business. What about the ten years it was there before you ever got there, suddenly you get all the credit for someone else's Labor?

And this freedom aside, that doesn't change the exploitive nature of capitalism and the wage-earner system.

Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought. No, I am not saying that, and you don't mind if I express myself and you not try to give me an opinion so you can argue against it, would you?

I know full well that things can be "exploited" in a manner that is good, for people or otherwise...

MY point is that you choose to work for the people you do, and having that choice means that you are not being exploited, you have agreed on terms that were supposedly mutually agreeable. And if they are not, you are free to leave. You were told what you would be compensated for before you started, you weren't forced to take the job.

Regards,
Gaar

No, I did not; and although the employer did, technically, I did as well. He sells my pies with which he makes money and uses to buy the ingredients; would I not be able to do this with the money I would make from selling the pies myself? Could I not pay for all of these expenses if I was given the full value of my labor as opposed to a small portion?

Uh no. The full value of your labor is not the final value of the product, the 'full' value of your labor is the value you added to the product.

Again, technically, I'm supplying them. He gets the money from my labor; my "pies." He doesn't get jack without me making pies, and so ultimately I'm the one who has paid for the ingredients, the store, the advertising, all that jazz. Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat. :cool:

You might want to define who exactly is a worker and who isn't. You'll find that of all the people working at a bakery the owner is doing far more work than any of his/her employees. Even if said owner isn't baking anything.

Well, to start, business requires existing capital. Being that the value of all my labor for these past ten years working for The Piemaster has been garnished, I probably don't have enough to start a business.

And this freedom aside, that doesn't change the exploitive nature of capitalism and the wage-earner system.

Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought.

The system is not exploitive, nor is it bad. You're apparently laboring under the assumption that anyone who does anything is entitled to the final end value of the product. Might want to try and explain to me how much is the value of the guy who puts together a car at the factory when that car sells for 120k. He didn't make the engine. Didn't design it either. Just put the pieces together. Car can't be sold without the engine in it. I suppose that guy should get 120k for each and every car sold? Not bloody likely.

Likewise the same applies to the pie. You just cooked it. Who came up with the recipe? Who marketed it (thereby increasing the value) who designed the shop (thereby increasing the value) who developed the efficient system of baking (thereby decreasing costs) who put the time in training you how to make that pie (thereby responsible for your ability to make the pie) etc... Face it, the baker of the pie is not the person who can make any reasonable claim to being entitled to the final sale value of said pie.

I have no idea as to whether this is satire or serious.

Good job!
That's what I've been trying to figure out these past months. i was confronted with the possibility that I am a perfectly selfish, psychopathic individual, which greatly shocked me since I've always believed in a more or less Judeo-Christian moral system in my life. When most people defend communism or capitalism they attempt to frame their beliefs in a morality of universal utilitarianism. I find myself justifying views only with one thing in mind - me me me me me. Hopefully i still have a small granule of humanity in me so I won't be a total bastard like in that scenario i just described. But, if i do some more soul searching and conclude i am indeed a complete psychopath you should probably put a bullet to my head cause I'd be nothing but a menace to society and my fellow human beings.

I prefer ETHICAL egoism, myself.

That is, I make sure that many of my endorphine rushes come from being a nice guy, so though I'm selfish, and aware of it, I'm still beneficial to the world around me, which nets me lots of endorphines, and keeps people from getting angry with me and working against me.

capitalism is definitely exploitative, and i have no problem with that. Hopefully i can go through life without getting exploited, and i won't mind conning someone out of their work. For example if I were to hire a maid I'd hire a mexican illegal and pay her nearly nothing. I gotta save my money. I'd shop at Walmart because their stuff is inexpensive, who cares if they don't have unions? that's a bad example anyways, because Walmart pays its workers well and gives them good benefits, most of the time better than competing unionized grocers. My conscience is at peace with the fact that my clothes are made by cheap sweatshop labor in southeast Asia, after all I am saving money. Factory owners are after profit and will therefore seek to pay their workers as little as possible, even if this meager wage is not enough for the worker's basic survival. But that works out for me, the middle class consumer, so I have no complaints.

Of course, if at any time I fall from my current middle class status and become a poor exploited lower class person then I'd condemn capitalism, start voting for socialists so I can hope to leech off of society, and get free shit. now after reading this you are probably thinking that I am a completely selfish, heartless, psychopath, in which case you are probably right.

You know where you need to go? Thats right. Law School.

You know where you need to go? Thats right. Law School.
i find myself partial to the hard sciences, so i'm trying to get a spot in a medical school, frighteningly enough.

i find myself partial to the hard sciences, so i'm trying to get a spot in a medical school, frighteningly enough.

Hm. You could also get a dual JD/MD.

Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought.


www.m-w.com entry 2(verb) for exploit

Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
- ex·ploit·able /-'sploi-t&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·ploit·er noun



wow, well that changes the poll entirely...

obviously capitalism has to do with people making productive use of each other for their own advantage.

This doesnt mean that they do so "meanly or unjustly"

I say this poll is null and void, cause it's not clear

Hm. You could also get a dual JD/MD.
that's a possibility, though i'm thinking more along the lines of research or surgery.

that's a possibility, though i'm thinking more along the lines of research or surgery.

Surgery... I suggest you print out the post up there and have it framed in your practice. Your patients deserve to have full disclosure before letting you near them with a scalpel :p

Though Dentistry would probably be right up your alley.

That's what I've been trying to figure out these past months. i was confronted with the possibility that I am a perfectly selfish, psychopathic individual, which greatly shocked me since I've always believed in a more or less Judeo-Christian moral system in my life. When most people defend communism or capitalism they attempt to frame their beliefs in a morality of universal utilitarianism. I find myself justifying views only with one thing in mind - me me me me me. Hopefully i still have a small granule of humanity in me so I won't be a total bastard like in that scenario i just described. But, if i do some more soul searching and conclude i am indeed a complete psychopath you should probably put a bullet to my head cause I'd be nothing but a menace to society and my fellow human beings.

I recently went throught the same dillemma, but recently Ive been reading some Ayn Rand(atlas shrugged). Im a christian, and got really depressed when I thought about what you are now thinking about. Ayn Rand's philosophies argue that your mindset "me me me" is rational, and ultimately the most beneficial to society. She does a good job of it too. I would explain it a lot better, but I cant, because I havent finished enough of it yet...

here is a link to an important speech from the book, pretty much sums up everything.
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm
It's really long though, so here is an edited down, shorter version
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

Surgery... I suggest you print out the post up there and have it framed in your practice. Your patients deserve to have full disclosure before letting you near them with a scalpel :p

Though Dentistry would probably be right up your alley.
yeah, the patients would be freaked out if they knew i don't give a shit. but i imagine i'd enjoy just doing surgery, i'd improve my skill for my sake. if someone dies, i'd be disappointed in my craft. then again I'm leaning towards research for my career.

from: http://www.capitalism.org/faq/selfishness.htm


Selfishness
Isn't capitalism founded upon the evil of selfishness.
Yes and no. Yes, you are correct in that capitalism enshrines self-interest. No, you are completely off the mark when you claim that to act in one's own benefit, that is to act selfishly, is evil.

What does it mean to be selfish?
To be selfish means to look out for one's own interests, i.e. one's own life. To eat to support your life is selfish. To make love to the woman you love is selfish. To have pride in ones accomplishments and character is selfish. To use one's mind in the pursuit of ones own happiness is selfish. By what standard can one judge these selfish things as evil? Only by an irrational one.

By what standard does one judge the good from the evil?
Man's life is the standard of value. All that supports a man's life is good, and all that destroys man's life is evil.

Is selfishness good or evil?
If evil is that which destroys man's life -- and to look after one's self interest -- is to support one's life, then how can selfishness be rationally held to be evil? It cannot.

I recently went throught the same dillemma, but recently Ive been reading some Ayn Rand(atlas shrugged). Im a christian, and got really depressed when I thought about what you are now thinking about. Ayn Rand's philosophies argue that your mindset "me me me" is rational, and ultimately the most beneficial to society. She does a good job of it too. I would explain it a lot better, but I cant, because I havent finished enough of it yet...

here is a link to an important speech from the book, pretty much sums up everything.
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm
It's really long though, so here is an edited down, shorter version
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
i'm quite familiar with ayn rand. hers is a dream world that can't possibly exist... her objectivism is as idealistic as marxism. In her ideal world, everyone is "rational" and respectful of "market forces," and everyone values merit. in the real world though, assholes like me exist, i only care about me... if I am a dictator in a stalinist country i'd be very happy and ruthlessly exploiting my people so i can live a good life. and i'd make sure that the system survives long enough that i can live and die in wanton luxury; i don't really care what the world is like after i die, who cares if my government is overthrown then. Such a mindset of uncompromising selfishness is definitely not beneficial to society at large.

I prefer ETHICAL egoism, myself.

That is, I make sure that many of my endorphine rushes come from being a nice guy, so though I'm selfish, and aware of it, I'm still beneficial to the world around me, which nets me lots of endorphines, and keeps people from getting angry with me and working against me.
Yes, I am nice to friends and family, I like the endorphin kick too. hopefully that shred of humanity in me that will always exist. and like you, i am nice to strangers just in case. but with strangers and business associates, i kiss ass if it helps me, and i exploit those who are powerless to stop me. but otherwise... for example i feel no endorphin rush donating money to charity... i might cynically donate in order that other people would see me as "moral." Tsunami victims and AIDS afflicted skinnies in Africa can go to hell. That is... until I get AIDS, then I'll start begging for your money. as you can see i am quite fucked up.

I avoid charity because it usually just makes things worse (except animal charities, since they kill the overpopulation rather than trying to preach to it about the evils of contraception), so no worries there.

As for exploiting those beneath you, don't do it in a way that can be negative to them. You never know when you might need their support in the future.

Think long term. Take no chances.

I avoid charity because it usually just makes things worse (except animal charities, since they kill the overpopulation rather than trying to preach to it about the evils of contraception), so no worries there.

As for exploiting those beneath you, don't do it in a way that can be negative to them. You never know when you might need their support in the future.

Think long term. Take no chances.
There is nothing wrong with taking chances. A factory owner in Bangladesh can give his workers a living wage and earn their gratitude, or save money and take a chance that he won't need the support of his exploited workers in the future. Obviously most factory owners take the chance and continue to screw over their workers, and most of the time, the factory owner comes out on top in the long term and the sweatshop laborers continue to waddle in poverty and filth. We as individuals make value judgments like this all the time in how we treat people, you can't possibly please everyone so it's best to concentrate on pleasing those who are close to you and who could be helpful, and ignore and/or take advantage of the rest.

Yes, I am nice to friends and family, I like the endorphin kick too. hopefully that shred of humanity in me that will always exist. and like you, i am nice to strangers just in case. but with strangers and business associates, i kiss ass if it helps me, and i exploit those who are powerless to stop me. but otherwise... for example i feel no endorphin rush donating money to charity... i might cynically donate in order that other people would see me as "moral." Tsunami victims and AIDS afflicted skinnies in Africa can go to hell. That is... until I get AIDS, then I'll start begging for your money. as you can see i am quite fucked up.

Deep down, whether they admit it or not, every single person feels this way. Learn to love it.

P.S. Ironically enough, I am in Law School. :)

i'm quite familiar with ayn rand. hers is a dream world that can't possibly exist... her objectivism is as idealistic as marxism. In her ideal world, everyone is "rational" and respectful of "market forces," and everyone values merit.
Being rational usually comes down to something like wanting to live. most people want to live, or they would already be dead.
Market forces will continue to work, whether people respect them or not. Farmers in the thirties continued to increase production even though prices were very low. The market was telling them that there were too many of them, they ignored it for awhile. Eventually though, the level of food production fell and the price went back up.
Everyone values merit. If you are buying a car, will you buy the car that has rust and a crappy engine, or a newer car, if prices are the same? If Microsoft comes out with a new program, and apple makes a different one to do the same thing, you will only buy the better value(in your opinion). No matter what, you wont throw money away without an ulterior motive(lack of information, friendships, depression, etc.).

in the real world though, assholes like me exist, i only care about me...
If you care about you, you will work at a job. This will benefit other members of society(those who you help to make money, and those who you provide goods and services to). Doesnt matter if you are a jerk, your labor is just as capable of doing good for people, when people pay you for it. If you get paid for it, then you benefit as well.


if I am a dictator in a stalinist country i'd be very happy and ruthlessly exploiting my people so i can live a good life.
this isnt capitalism, that would be using force to harm someone else to your own benefit.

if I am a dictator in a stalinist country i'd be very happy and ruthlessly exploiting my people so i can live a good life. and i'd make sure that the system survives long enough that i can live and die in wanton luxury;
see the self interest, you do behave rationally...


i don't really care what the world is like after i die, who cares if my government is overthrown then.
why should you?

The only role of just government is to protect its citizens lives, liberties, and properties from the initiation of force or fraud. IE to prevent dictators such as the above from coming to power within the jurisdiction

There is nothing wrong with taking chances. A factory owner in Bangladesh can give his workers a living wage and earn their gratitude, or save money and take a chance that he won't need the support of his exploited workers in the future. Obviously most factory owners take the chance and continue to screw over their workers, and most of the time, the factory owner comes out on top in the long term and the sweatshop laborers continue to waddle in poverty and filth. We as individuals make value judgments like this all the time in how we treat people, you can't possibly please everyone so it's best to concentrate on pleasing those who are close to you and who could be helpful, and ignore and/or take advantage of the rest.

True, but you generally want to increase the overall positive of your world so that it provides a more useful background for your own advancement.

If you make a lot of enemies by stepping on a lot of people, you increase the chance of it coming back to bite you someday, and causing problems within your own industry (depending what it is).

It's like if I ran around purposefully depressing writers in to killing themselves by sleeping with their lovers. It would reduce my competition, and get me laid quite a bit.

But what if someone catches on, and exposes my being a (fully legal) jackass.

My readers might have issues with me, and read something else.

An extreme scenario, but I'm tired as hell.

An extreme scenario, but I'm tired as hell.

same here. I live in US eastern time zone (GMT-5?) oh well, its 5:30 am and i am only here cause apparently i have no life...

anyway i can barely keep my eyes open, good night

Being rational usually comes down to something like wanting to live. most people want to live, or they would already be dead.
Market forces will continue to work, whether people respect them or not. Farmers in the thirties continued to increase production even though prices were very low. The market was telling them that there were too many of them, they ignored it for awhile. Eventually though, the level of food production fell and the price went back up.
Everyone values merit. If you are buying a car, will you buy the car that has rust and a crappy engine, or a newer car, if prices are the same? If Microsoft comes out with a new program, and apple makes a different one to do the same thing, you will only buy the better value(in your opinion). No matter what, you wont throw money away without an ulterior motive(lack of information, friendships, depression, etc.).
Ayn Rand also says communism is irrational, but hey, if I were the pig that is "more equal" than the other pigs and I'm living large, I wouldn't give a flying fuck what Ayn Rand says. Personally, I would not care if other people are suffering.

If you care about you, you will work at a job. This will benefit other members of society(those who you help to make money, and those who you provide goods and services to). Doesnt matter if you are a jerk, your labor is just as capable of doing good for people, when people pay you for it. If you get paid for it, then you benefit as well.
In the current capitalist system of the US, yes. But i'm not analyzing any one particular system, I am trying to determine the fundamental motivations of my behavior... therefore I would not behave that way (ie work at a job, etc.) in every situation that I'm in.


this isnt capitalism, that would be using force to harm someone else to your own benefit.
So? I don't value capitalism any more than I do communism. I value whatever benefits me. Currently, in real life, I think my life is pretty good so I am satisifed with the system. I oppose many socialistic measures in this country because that would interfere with my lifestyle. But if hypothetically I were a dictator of a stalinist country, I'd be happy and I'd make sure I stay happy, even if some underlings are harmed. And if hypothetically I were a poverty stricken person, I'd vote socialist every time, I'd go get food stamps, I'd do whatever would make my life easier.


see the self interest, you do behave rationally...
Not by Ayn Rand's standards. Rand harps on free markets, personal productivity, etc as marks of the rational man. If i can live well without all that, then by all means I would.


why should you?

The only role of just government is to protect its citizens lives, liberties, and properties from the initiation of force or fraud. IE to prevent dictators such as the above from coming to power within the jurisdiction
There is no law of nature that states what government should or should not be like. The only laws of nature are the laws of physics. Your comments are merely your own opinions of what government needs to be. From my perspective, as a dictator the role of the government would be to serve me, and of course I'd send the army out after my rebellious people.

True, but you generally want to increase the overall positive of your world so that it provides a more useful background for your own advancement.

If you make a lot of enemies by stepping on a lot of people, you increase the chance of it coming back to bite you someday, and causing problems within your own industry (depending what it is).

It's like if I ran around purposefully depressing writers in to killing themselves by sleeping with their lovers. It would reduce my competition, and get me laid quite a bit.

But what if someone catches on, and exposes my being a (fully legal) jackass.

My readers might have issues with me, and read something else.

An extreme scenario, but I'm tired as hell.
thought experiments are always fun, and your example is illustrative even though it may be far fetched... all your points are valid, an individual can only hope that the risks he takes in life will not result in bad things. Nothing can be guaranteed, but if we take no risks at all, then we'll just rot in our chairs... that said, one must be careful when determining who to screw over... the best we can do is hope we judged correctly who is weak and usable and who isn't, and always be prepared for the possibility that the outcome is not good.

Indeed.

As it goes, while survival of the fittest is, in theory, how it should work.

In reality, it's at least as much the survival of the luckiest.

Dinosaurs were very very fit.

Not too lucky though.

Nope. Getting struck by a meteor would not make my day.

Did you supply the ingredients to make the pie? Did you supply the oven to Bake it? Or pay for the power it took, to make it? Is it your supply chain that sold the pie?

operating costs ≠ exploitation

Does the person supplying all of these other things deserve anything for supplying them, and taking the chance that they may not be able to make money at it?

yup. in proportion to their input into the labor involved. operating expenses are operating expenses, and are ultimately paid by labor anyways. why should capital get all of the wealth generated by an enterprise (minus expenses and the market rate for labor)? and why should they continue to get all of that long after their original investment has been paid back - long after it has been paid back twice over even?

everybody takes chances. and if the business goes bust, the capitalist won't be hurting nearly as bad as the worker living a paycheck and a half out of poverty.

Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat.

ah, the fine line between socialism and piracy.

but that's ok cause pirates was good peoples. and we're fairly sure that both halves of the revolutionary socialist movement took their flags from them anyway.

A lot of people equate capitalism (or capitalist-like viewpoints or policies, or just business) with exploitation. And I don't mean because there are exploitive capitalists. People seem to insist that capitalism is DEFINED by how it exploits the workers.

Well, I disagree! I'm not feeling too argumentative right now, so I'll just leave it at that.

There is a poll coming.
i'm not one of the evil Owners; i don't run a company, i don't have employees, and i don't control other peoples' means of production. i'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

yet, somehow, i manage to escape the supposed exploitation of capitalism. i have skills which i sell to prospective employers, and i receive wages that i feel are fair in exchange for my efforts. hell, currently i feel that i am getting paid more than i deserve!

hell, currently i feel that i am getting paid more than i deserve!

but in terms of objective standards, that's unlikely. unless, of course, the place you work for isn't running for profit and doesn't mind losing money. in any business that isn't on its way out, everyone working there must be worth more to the owners than they are paid for their work (or nearly everyone - allowing for a couple of special cases or people who just haven't been fired yet). if they paid people more than their labor was worth, they could not turn a profit.

but in terms of objective standards, that's unlikely. unless, of course, the place you work for isn't running for profit and doesn't mind losing money.
all i care about is getting what i feel is fair pay for my efforts; i don't care if somebody else disagrees with my assessment of my abilities, because i am the one who has to live and work according to the standards i set.

i certainly hope my university profits from my efforts, since i want them to grow and prosper. i believe that the combination of my efforts with my coworkers will produce things of value beyond what any of us could have produced alone. in that sense, the company only needs to pay each of us for our independent "value," but the output from our work will be higher than the sum of our independent "values." i like that, and i certainly don't begrudge the university its profit as long as i am paid a fair wage for my work.

yup. in proportion to their input into the labor involved. operating expenses are operating expenses, and are ultimately paid by labor anyways. why should capital get all of the wealth generated by an enterprise (minus expenses and the market rate for labor)? and why should they continue to get all of that long after their original investment has been paid back - long after it has been paid back twice over even?

Whether the investment has been paid back or not is irrelevant. But hey, you're operating under an assumption that the only kind of labor is the direct-labor that created the product. Ignoring the rest of the labor that goes into managing the capital. Creating the environment. Hiring the right people. Managing the people. Finding new products. Updating your product. Etc... Indeed if it were handled directly in proportion to their input into the labor involved the business owner is the one getting screwed.

everybody takes chances. and if the business goes bust, the capitalist won't be hurting nearly as bad as the worker living a paycheck and a half out of poverty.

If the Business goes bust the Capitalist will be out on his ass with his entire investment lost. Considering that for most small business owners (that would be the majority of the USA economy) losing their investment and the business going bust means they're broke and have to declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile the worker just needs to find another job and doesn't need to worry about bankruptcy because hey, he played it safe and kept his money in the bank rather than dare to take the risk of starting a business.

Whether the investment has been paid back or not is irrelevant. But hey, you're operating under an assumption that the only kind of labor is the direct-labor that created the product. Ignoring the rest of the labor that goes into managing the capital. Creating the environment. Hiring the right people. Managing the people. Finding new products. Updating your product. Etc... Indeed if it were handled directly in proportion to their input into the labor involved the business owner is the one getting screwed.

did i ever say that management wasn't labor? what the hell else would management be? management and ownership are different things - as a look at any larger company will show (at least for ownership in significant amounts).

If the Business goes bust the Capitalist will be out on his ass with his entire investment lost. Considering that for most small business owners (that would be the majority of the USA economy) losing their investment and the business going bust means they're broke and have to declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile the worker just needs to find another job and doesn't need to worry about bankruptcy because hey, he played it safe and kept his money in the bank rather than dare to take the risk of starting a business.

got any stats on the relative numbers of bankruptcy claims filed by workers vs capitalists? and how about for savings rates between capitalists and workers?

also, what are you measuring when you claim that small business owners make up the majority of the us economy? sheer numerical superiority, contribution to gdp, share of the total wealth?

yup. in proportion to their input into the labor involved. operating expenses are operating expenses, and are ultimately paid by labor anyways. why should capital get all of the wealth generated by an enterprise (minus expenses and the market rate for labor)? and why should they continue to get all of that long after their original investment has been paid back - long after it has been paid back twice over even? As long as they continue to run it... It doesn't become some Right of yours to "take it over" once it has made him some given amount of money, does it?

And what if the business never makes any money? Who pays then? You get a "wage" because you are guaranteed money no matter how the rest of the process "works out", you are taking no chances, just "selling" your time. If you don't like the terms, don't work. But after agreeing to the terms you simply don't get to change them to whatever YOU think is "fair", do you?

everybody takes chances. and if the business goes bust, the capitalist won't be hurting nearly as bad as the worker living a paycheck and a half out of poverty. How do you figure this? A person, just like the Capitalist can always go find another job. But as an employee, you didn't put up your Life Savings to start the business, did you? So where do you believe you garner any Right to take someone’s business away from them simply because you worked FOR them?

Regards,
Gaar

did i ever say that management wasn't labor? what the hell else would management be? management and ownership are different things - as a look at any larger company will show (at least for ownership in significant amounts).

When it comes to a discussion concerning a bakery where the pies are made by hand it is assumed the owner is the manager.

got any stats on the relative numbers of bankruptcy claims filed by workers vs capitalists? and how about for savings rates between capitalists and workers?

The average salary of people who declare bankruptcy is 25k. Which doesn't say much about the relative numbers. I however don't think there are any sources for the relative numbers out there. As far as the savings rates that one is intituitive enough that I'm not even going to bother trying to find it, the capitalists get where they are by saving.

also, what are you measuring when you claim that small business owners make up the majority of the us economy? sheer numerical superiority, contribution to gdp, share of the total wealth?

This particular source, using GDP, pits it at about 38% for Small Business, 36% for Government Spending and the remaning 26% for the Big Corps.

http://www.ffi.org/articles/mythsandrealities.pdf

So, in an ideal situation, everyone would be paid 'fairly' for their efforts and work.

Now, first of all, who decides this? (I'll come back to the point as a whole later on, too.) You can't just take an object and say 'This is worht $150' and be done with it. What if the next guy over thinks it's worth $130? Or $200? This is where the market comes in; the market decides what people want and how much they are willing to pay for it. If not enough people want something, then the market collapses. Why would this be any different a system where one was paid according to the exact value of their labor? Far fairer than the State deciding the value of something.

Second; this eliminates the concept of employers, and employees. This breaks most of the industries on the planet. Why? Well, because it basically means everyone has to be self-employed. Nobody is going to employ someone for $50 per hour if the company only makes $50 per hour, and especially not considering all the other costs there are to pay (Materials, production equipment, other members of staff who don't have a hand in direct production, etc.). And if everyone is self employed, aside from the McDonald's and Microsofts, what happens to the really fundamental industries? What happens to food distribution? What happens to airlines? What happens to UPS? They all fall to pieces.

And why do they fall to pieces? Because, similarly to point one (Said I'm coming back, didn't I? :P), there's no way to decide the value of those jobs which don't have the end result of a physical product. How much is it worth to drive a truck from Chicago to Detroit? $400? $800? $20,000? $.25? There's no observable result of one's labors, and this could easily lead to far more exploitation than your simple belief a sensible system is expliotative.

This entire idea is based on a mythological idea that the selling price of a product is solely the value which a worker put into making it. When in actuality the cost goes to that person, the person who sold it on the shop floor, the person who made the website, the people who funded the venture in the first place, the people overseeing all the workers, etc. etc.. In actuality if people were paid according to the value of what they put in, prices would...... remain exactly the same. Because there's no underlying 'value' of any item or service, it depends entirely on the market and the population as a whole.

No, I believe you are missing the point...

Did you supply the ingredients to make the pie? Did you supply the oven to Bake it? Or pay for the power it took, to make it? Is it your supply chain that sold the pie? Do you think you would be able to sell all the pies you needed to if you did it yourself?Don't forget marketing! How's anyone going to know there are pies for sale without marketing?

I believe your definition of exploitation is too narrow, and takes only extreme cases of exploitation into account; I'm not even making a normative statement ABOUT this exploitation, though I find it comical that everyone assumes that I consider it bad thing. Heh.

For the kids:


This has been brought up in this thread several times, but I'll address Urantia's specifics:
No, I did not; and although the employer did, technically, I did as well. He sells my pies with which he makes money and uses to buy the ingredients; would I not be able to do this with the money I would make from selling the pies myself? Could I not pay for all of these expenses if I was given the full value of my labor as opposed to a small portion?Who knows? What do you do with the 'small portion'? If you have patience you can afford just about anything, especially pie ingredients.

Again, technically, I'm supplying them. He gets the money from my labor; my "pies." He doesn't get jack without me making pies, and so ultimately I'm the one who has paid for the ingredients, the store, the advertising, all that jazz. Which might lead me to say that the WORKERS deserve to own the means of production, and then I start raising the black flag and cutting throat. :cool: If you're labor paid for everything, then how did he have the capital to employ you to begin with? Obviously, he had to have some of it before you got there, or there would've been no job for you to get, which would probably work out better for his neck.

Well, to start, business requires existing capital. Being that the value of all my labor for these past ten years working for The Piemaster has been garnished, I probably don't have enough to start a business.
If you can't save enough money in ten years to buy an oven, you're probably an idiot.

And this freedom aside, that doesn't change the exploitive nature of capitalism and the wage-earner system.

Of course, in your minds, "exploit" automatically means "bad." You don't even give it a second thought.
I've never seen 'exploit' used in this context to have anything other than a negative connotation. But I suppose "he exploited his workers" could just mean "he put his workers to work", depending on what definition of 'exploit' you're using.

all i care about is getting what i feel is fair pay for my efforts; i don't care if somebody else disagrees with my assessment of my abilities, because i am the one who has to live and work according to the standards i set. Some very good points you make Bottle, and might I add to this one...

That because you are not 'part owner' you are not responsible for any action taken against "the Business", if something were to happen. You do not take any of the risks that a Business may subject itself to, simply by becoming a business.

There HAS to be some kind of "reward" for doing such things... otherwise, why would anyone ever risk their own money to start a business? If your employees can simply "take it away", why would anyone take such a chance with their hard earned money?

It's people that want to do as little as possible, and perhaps nothing at all, and want to live at the same standard as those that go out and take chances and work hard to make their businesses successful. They don't believe people should be rewarded for taking chances and working hard and being successful... Those types of people should HAVE to support the lazy people, or so some think.

What these people don't understand is... When you take such rewards out of the System you get nothing but a bunch of people, like themselves, trying to do as little as possible since everyone is going to get the same "reward"...

Is it any wonder such a System has never worked very successfully in almost a century now?

Regards,
Gaar

I recently went throught the same dillemma, but recently Ive been reading some Ayn Rand(atlas shrugged). Im a christian, and got really depressed when I thought about what you are now thinking about. Ayn Rand's philosophies argue that your mindset "me me me" is rational, and ultimately the most beneficial to society. She does a good job of it too. I would explain it a lot better, but I cant, because I havent finished enough of it yet...I read that book, but I had already come to the realization that everything a man does is ultimately for himself. It was depressing then, but not anymore. I really think that what's good for others is indeed good for you, but at a much deeper level than Rand ever thought. Try not to take it all too terribly seriously. I think I'm a much better person for having read that monstrous tome, but I'm no objectivist and never will be.

in the real world though, assholes like me exist, i only care about me... if I am a dictator in a stalinist country i'd be very happy and ruthlessly exploiting my people so i can live a good life. and i'd make sure that the system survives long enough that i can live and die in wanton luxury; i don't really care what the world is like after i die, who cares if my government is overthrown then. Such a mindset of uncompromising selfishness is definitely not beneficial to society at large.

Ah, but such a mindset is beneficial to society, provided you don't have the right to commit force, fraud or theft against anyone.

Provided that these basic restrictions are in place, which prevent you just zipping down to the bank with a machine gun over your shoulder and making a "forced withdrawl", the only way you can feed your insatiable lust for wealth and riches is by providing something to society. Essentially the only way to make money which excludes theft and fraud is to sell something which people need or want. Thus you are motivated to provide for society, even though your only concern is your own wealth and happiness.

A further justification for libertarian capitalism can be derived from this as well. If we assume a "worst case scenario", that many, if not all people ultimately value themselves before others, it is folly to allow one person unconditional jurisdiction over another or any number of others.

Socialism (I'm talking about the industry-nationalising high-taxing pro-state socialism here, not the wonderful fantasy socialism where there is no government and everyone voluntarily works for the good of the people), automatically gives one group - the state - power over the economic business of the entire populace (Social authoritarianism in its various forms also does this, but with social freedom as oppose to economic).

If politicians are motivated by greed and not altruism (and I propose that the vast majority of people are motivated in this way), why on earth should they be given power over the economic or social dealings of an entire nation? What's going to stop them taxing you into the dirt so they can line their own pockets? What's going to stop them subsidizing businesses which happen to be run by their friends and family and over-regulating others? Altruism? Respect for their fellow man? Fat chance.

This is an argument for minarchism if ever there was one.

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.
Which goes a long way toward explaining why Marxism is dead ( except for a few, scattered, brain-dead diehards ).

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave.

It may seem exploitive, but it isn't. In my opinion, you are getting the full worth of your work if you accept the money you are paid for it and continue to make pies. There is no other 'worth' to the pie unless you consider the pie itself... i.e, you aren't eating the pie and therefore you aren't getting the full pie's worth. Does that mean if you want to avoid exploitation, and you work at making pies, you should (and do) eat every pie you make?

Back to the example, it isn't entirely your work when it isn't entirely your pie. A company is a unit of individuals all working both for their own gain directly through work and reward, and indirectly through the same measure. If individuals did not gain from it, the system wouldn't work. Pies wouldn't be made. But instead, all gain, because in a sense the individual becomes part of a larger organism when they decide to work at a certain place.

In the end I guess it all comes down to what you consider exploitation.

I think exploitation, and victimization in general, ends when personal responsibility starts. I think there are 'cults of victimhood' in our society that really INSIST that there are victims constantly made (and usually, it's ME ME ME who is the victim) and, even worse, that these victims are helpless (and usually, must be externally helped... BY ADOPTING MY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY). I think a lot of people will be unhappy with their job and blame capitalism, or unhappy with their asshole boss and insist that the "capitalists" are all asshole tyrants.

Anyway, I'm going to go exploit some pie. :)

Like I said. Exploitation can only really happen, beyond social agreement, if staples are monopolized.

Food, water, shelter, clothes (and this mostly because you'll get arrested otherwise). All you need is that to survive.

Everything else is a matter of how much work you do.

I don't feel exploited in my job (no, I am not a CEO) but some people are exploited.

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.

Well, Marx was not a very well thought man.

While the employer is "garnishing a profit" the employer is also the one supplying the materians for making the pie, which the worker uses. It is not, in fact, all the workers work. It is a combinatory effort, the supplies aquired by the employer + the work of the worker.

Marx, with his lack of perception, viewed the "Work" itself as the only relevant act, and not the product, or the infrastructure (hense why Marxist philosophy always crashes in the end.)

In the end, basically, the "Workers" are supposedly handed all the operation (sort of a structured cooperative[supposedly]), However, there is always administration, so, while the Workers are in fact "handed this" the persons who become the administrative control, in effect become the new "owners" of the company... The new administration is tasked with one of two goals, either turning a profit to support the "cooperative"'s infrastructure, or handing all profits to the employees. Under the prior, the workers, under Marxist philosophy interpret themselves in exploited status, and revolt again, or in the later, the cooperative no longer can fund its own job and needs (as a cooperative and not individuals), and fails.

Capitalism more or less works, because it deals with reality, as opposed to hanging itself on ideological principles. It recognizes that the product exists by the resources from all parties.

The pie maker, for example, working at a bakery, might not be getting the total cost of the pie (his work), but he is also, in performing his work for which he is payed, using the tools and equipment of his employer in order to perform his job. IOW. The baker doing the task, is not the sole source of the pie, only a part of it, the ovens, and impliments he uses, also are "part" of the final product, as is all the needed resources for maintaining this "infrastructure". The owner would also be paying for people to go around and fix the equipment when it breaks. The baker might know how to use the oven, and use his skills to make a pie. But if the oven breaks, he lacks the skills to repair it. Without the oven, the baker is useless, and without the baker, the oven is useless. So there needs to be maintenance staff. Now, what money is the maintenance staff payed from, from the profits garnered from the product.

Marx elevated the "Workers" over the support staff. If you were not making an actual product, you were considered useless by the system. Irregardless of the fact that your "product" was the very ability of the worker to produce a product.

" Yes, and I long for the Revolution to overthrow our corporate overlords" : It doesnt surprise me that so many of you idiots chose that one.

" Yes, and I long for the Revolution to overthrow our corporate overlords" : It doesnt surprise me that so many of you idiots chose that one.

I'm with this guy.

" Yes, and I long for the Revolution to overthrow our corporate overlords" : It doesnt surprise me that so many of you idiots chose that one.
I'm with this guy.
you guys aren't helping. calling people "shitheads" doesn't help anybody.

you guys aren't helping. calling people "shitheads" doesn't help anybody.

Mine was sarcasm. I was trying to satire what was an idiotic statement.

you guys aren't helping. calling people "shitheads" doesn't help anybody.


I agree with your fully. It really makes one look stupid when they sit and criticise people on their opinions. Everyone has one, and if the people of this world can't figure that out, I fear that soon, opinion will be outlawed. Get over it people, we will all believe what we want to believe, and there is nothing that you nor I can do about it. :headbang:

Libertarian Capitalism ultimatley will self-destruct. It is predicated on sending wealth from one class of people to another (of course, all market economies do), but, with wealth so concentrated in one class of people, a few problems arise:
1. No consumer base.
2. Concentration of power.

IMO, 2 is far scarier than 1. If just, say, 100 people control 90% of the wealth of the country (wealth that capitalism says is needed to be invested back into the country in the form of factories, etc.), every single person that mismanages or wastes wealth on consumer goods is taken a disproportionatley LARGE portion of the economy out of investment...it is expected, too. The richer the person is, the more likely they are to be out of touch with the real world.

IMO, 2 is far scarier than 1. If just, say, 100 people control 90% of the wealth of the country (wealth that capitalism says is needed to be invested back into the country in the form of factories, etc.), every single person that mismanages or wastes wealth on consumer goods is taken a disproportionatley LARGE portion of the economy out of investment...it is expected, too. The richer the person is, the more likely they are to be out of touch with the real world. So are you trying to say that Bill Gates "mismanages" his money because he gives so much of it away as Charity?

You know, to people in Africa to combat AIDS and hunger, that type of "mismanaged thing", right?!?!

Give me a break.

Regards,
Gaar

Some very good points you make Bottle, and might I add to this one...*clipped for length*
i think part of my perspective might also come from my job field:

i work in the biological sciences, currently in academia. the lab i work in is a great model system for this kind of discussion, because we have one low-level "laborer" (me), one higher level "laborer" (a much more experienced technician), two "mid-level managers" (two PhD researchers), and the "CEO" (our principle investigator, the PhD who is in charge of the lab).

now, in our lab the principle investigator (PI) isn't actually doing "bench work" very often. she certain has a very strong background in science, and is capable of using all the methods we employ, but she is almost exclusively an administrator at this point. the technician and i do the bulk of the "grunt work," though the "mid-level managers" also do quite a bit with us. the "mid-level managers" are also each in charge of overseeing one of the two major "wings" of our research, and of teaching the tech and i how to do our jobs correctly.

so the raw product that our lab generates (the data obtained from experiments) is not generated by the PI. she doesn't run the experiments. she doesn't handle the reagents. she doesn't prep the slides. she doesn't scan the slides. she doesn't do the image analysis. she sees the tertiary data, after it has already gone through two levels of assembly and processing. like a CEO, she is not directly involved in the "manufacture" of our lab's "product."

which leads us to the question, why have the PI around if she doesn't actually "make" any of our "product"? well, she is in charge of writing and polishing the grants for the lab, proofing our papers, organizing and designing our research projects, and keeping track of the several threads of research we have going at any one time. she is in charge of recruiting new members for the lab (which involves a very careful and difficult screening process). she must attract funding and attention for the lab so that we can continue to work and to expand our research. she arranges collaborations with other labs. she deals with the governmental red tape for our use of animals, our environmental concerns, our employee safety issues, and our funding/tax records with the university.

frankly, i shudder to think of taking on my PI's job. she's the "capitalist" of our lab, because technically she "owns" our materials, our data, and our final product, but there's no way in hell i consider myself "oppressed" by her or her position. she deals with management headaches that i avoid like the plague, and she juggles more things than i can imagine. she earns her place, and her status.

i am not jealous of the upper-level management, no matter how much bigger their paychecks may be.

Libertarian Capitalism ultimatley will self-destruct. It is predicated on sending wealth from one class of people to another (of course, all market economies do), but, with wealth so concentrated in one class of people, a few problems arise:
1. No consumer base.
2. Concentration of power.

IMO, 2 is far scarier than 1. If just, say, 100 people control 90% of the wealth of the country (wealth that capitalism says is needed to be invested back into the country in the form of factories, etc.), every single person that mismanages or wastes wealth on consumer goods is taken a disproportionatley LARGE portion of the economy out of investment...it is expected, too. The richer the person is, the more likely they are to be out of touch with the real world.

Not true, capitalism and the free market is based out of a flow of wealth in the form of labor to the business class, and in the form of wages to the working class. When there is not a free flow, when there is wealth accumulating on one end, it would be through an outside force causing prices and wages to be skewed. In America, that model of corporatism that all socialists rail against, the government is a very strong outside force that does have policies that lead to wealth accumulation on the corporate end.

Mine was sarcasm. I was trying to satire what was an idiotic statement.
oops. sorry, then...i'm a little dense sometimes :).

oops. sorry, then...i'm a little dense sometimes :).

That was an extremely easy mistake to make. So much so that it was my fault for posting it.

*snip* Another excellent example...

By some people's estimation, around here anyway, you should "own" that Lab because you are the one producing the "results"...

Too bad you don't want to, I guess "Capitalists" should endeavor to hire people like yourself, and not some of the others around here... :p

Make sure they know which employees are looking to "take" their business away from them... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Libertarian Capitalism ultimatley will self-destruct. It is predicated on sending wealth from one class of people to another (of course, all market economies do), but, with wealth so concentrated in one class of people, a few problems arise:
1. No consumer base.
2. Concentration of power.


No. Libertarian capitalism isn't interested in transferring money between any kind of class, because libertarian capitalism doesn't enforce or concern itself with class. Under a libertarian capitalist system, all people are legal equals, and they are free to buy, sell, trade, employ and be employed as they please. As for the idea that modern libertarian capitalism concentrates wealth to one class, take some real life examples. In places like the states, and to a lesser extent Britain, where a predominantly capitalist system has prevailed, wealth hasn't just gone up for the rich, it's gone up for everyone, regardless of their position in relation to others.

Compare the poor of a few hundred years ago to the poor of today. Yesterday's poor were emaciated by hunger, today's poor over-eat. Capitalism brings wealth to rich and poor alike, because it allows anyone with a skill, ability, product or anything which they can possibly sell to make a decent living and to actually get richer as they work.

Another excellent example...

By some people's estimation, around here anyway, you should "own" that Lab because you are the one producing the "results"...

to be perfectly honest, the idea of "owning" a lab is slightly terrifying to me at this point. i don't know if i will ever want that responsibility...i like being a "laborer" in science, doing bench work and having somebody else worry about administrative and political crap. i guess i'm just brainwashed by TEH CAPITALIZTS :).

Libertarian Capitalism ultimatley will self-destruct.
Interesting that someone would be predicting the 'self-destruction' of 'Capitalism' and yet that is exactly what has/is happening to Communism around the Globe for better than a decade now...

Regards,
Gaar

Interesting that someone would be predicting the 'self-destruction' of 'Capitalism' and yet that is exactly what has/is happening to Communism around the Globe for better than a decade now...

Regards,
Gaar

Communism even self-destructs in the same manner he predicted capitalism would. Too much wealth accumulation in the government, who in turn mismanages it and seriously harms the economy.

Not true, capitalism and the free market is based out of a flow of wealth in the form of labor to the business class, and in the form of wages to the working class. When there is not a free flow, when there is wealth accumulating on one end, it would be through an outside force causing prices and wages to be skewed. In America, that model of corporatism that all socialists rail against, the government is a very strong outside force that does have policies that lead to wealth accumulation on the corporate end.
Divide the country into two forms of people:
Capitalists/Consumers (given the less than 2% savings rate in the US these days, and that, in the past, it literally WAS this relationship, it is logical to do this)
Capitalists are the ones that own the means of production. The only reason they have this means of production is because it will earn them more currency. Where does it come from? Only one place...consumers!
The rich become richer and the poor become poorer. (Which is why the US savings rate is falling rapidly...of course, I'd prefer to save than spend, but, then again, I'm a capitalist kind of guy)
Wealth accumulation is inherent in the system. It has to, in order to work. The theory you are proposing is that Capitalist A, when earning his wealth, will spend a portion of it and buy things from Capitalist B, who returns the wealth to his workers(consumers), who were the ones giving wealth to Capitalist A in the first place.
If this worked, then capitalists would never increase their savings rate.


So are you trying to say that Bill Gates "mismanages" his money because he gives so much of it away as Charity?

Peter the Great wasn't such a bad Czar, but you still had plenty of other bad ones.


Communism even self-destructs in the same manner he predicted capitalism would. Too much wealth accumulation in the government, who in turn mismanages it and seriously harms the economy.
Exactly.
Market economies are the best, specifically capitalist. Laissez-Faire ends up killing itself, though, as we saw in the late 1800's.



Interesting that someone would be predicting the 'self-destruction' of 'Capitalism' and yet that is exactly what has/is happening to Communism around the Globe for better than a decade now...
Libertarian Capitalism already did self-destruct; the 1930's.
Not all Capitalism is Libertarian capitalism.

Here are a few points I'd like to make :

1. I didn't read the thread. Too long, full of bullshit and have some real things to do.
2. Capitalism is no more exploitative than any other system, it is just that the wealth is not shared evenly.
3. Capitalism is not evil, no system is evil, it is just a system that rose after feudalism and during the industrial revolution
4. Communism is not evil, it is just an ideal which rose after the rise of capitalism because capitalism introduced new conserns and a new way of thinking and which has influenced the world for the best.
5. The cold war which was more a war for power than an ideologic war created 2 blocks full of bullshit.
6. In the west, some people are still fighting a religious war for capitalism without really knowing what they are up for. They confuse the US with capitalism and when people point out social progress, they say it is part of capitalism. In other words, they define capitalism as everything which is good.
7. Debate is pointless, education comes first.

Divide the country into two forms of people:
Capitalists/Consumers (given the less than 2% savings rate in the US these days, and that, in the past, it literally WAS this relationship, it is logical to do this)
Capitalists are the ones that own the means of production. The only reason they have this means of production is because it will earn them more currency. Where does it come from? Only one place...consumers!
The rich become richer and the poor become poorer. (Which is why the US savings rate is falling rapidly...of course, I'd prefer to save than spend, but, then again, I'm a capitalist kind of guy)
Wealth accumulation is inherent in the system. It has to, in order to work. The theory you are proposing is that Capitalist A, when earning his wealth, will spend a portion of it and buy things from Capitalist B, who returns the wealth to his workers(consumers), who were the ones giving wealth to Capitalist A in the first place.
If this worked, then capitalists would never increase their savings rate.


Some questions and points:

1. How can you possibly divide up the consumers and the capitalists? 50% of all households own shares of corporate stock.

2. Do you know the most key means to production? Labor. Who owns this means to production? The labor force. How does the corporations acquire this means to production? Through an exchange of currency at the fair market wage.

3. The savings rate has much more to do with government's interference with the interest rates and monetary policy than the economic system.

4. The free market economy is powered by the need to provide people with goods and services with more utility than simply saving money. When they do, both sides are required to invest money, not save it, and both sides will benefit.

Here are a few points I'd like to make :

1. I didn't read the thread. Too long, full of bullshit and have some real things to do.
2. Capitalism is no more exploitative than any other system, it is just that the wealth is not shared evenly.
3. Capitalism is not evil, no system is evil, it is just a system that rose after feudalism and during the industrial revolution
4. Communism is not evil, it is just an ideal which rose after the rise of capitalism because capitalism introduced new conserns and a new way of thinking and which has influenced the world for the best.
5. The cold war which was more a war for power than an ideologic war created 2 blocks full of bullshit.
6. In the west, some people are still fighting a religious war for capitalism
without really knowing what they are up for. They confuse the US with capitalism and when people point out social progress, they say it is part of capitalism. In other words, they define capitalism as everything which is good.

I agree with everything above except your spelling of concerns.

7. Debate is pointless, education comes first.

This is true and not true. While many people do come here and argue with insufficient knowledge of the topic, it can serve as a means for education, provided one comes in with an open mind.

I have learned a great deal from some of these discussions.

to be perfectly honest, the idea of "owning" a lab is slightly terrifying to me at this point. i don't know if i will ever want that responsibility...i like being a "laborer" in science, doing bench work and having somebody else worry about administrative and political crap. i guess i'm just brainwashed by TEH CAPITALIZTS :).

but owning and administration are different things. in a collectively owned factory, there will still need to be people to do management and administrative work. and these people would still be accountable to the owners. all that necessarily has to change is with whom ownership of productive assests resides.

50% of all households own shares of corporate stock.
u kidding?
Less than 6% of the world population own corporate stocks.

but owning and administration are different things. in a collectively owned factory, there will still need to be people to do management and administrative work. and these people would still be accountable to the owners. What "owners"? Didn't all you workers just "take" ownership? So who is it you are all accountable to now?

all that necessarily has to change is with whom ownership of productive assests resides. That changes when you spend your own money to buy all the equipment and do it for yourself rather than having agreed to help someone else do it...

I believe they call that ownership. Then you get to decide who you are going to "hire" to "help you" do all the things your business is going to need to do in order to be successful.

Do you think that, once your new business is successful, that the people you hired have some right to take your business from you because they work for you?

Regards,
Gaar

1. How can you possibly divide up the consumers and the capitalists? 50% of all households own shares of corporate stock.

yes, but 20% of those own nearly all of the total shares, with the remainded amounting to almost nothing. the easiest way to divide capitalists from workers (or consumers i suppose, though i don't think that's as good a term for it) is to see who owns the m of p to any significant extent and who doesn't. particularly, see who can live off of their ownership alone, and who must work to make a living.

2. Do you know the most key means to production? Labor. Who owns this means to production? The labor force. How does the corporations acquire this means to production? Through an exchange of currency at the fair market wage.

labor is not included in the term 'means of production'. it could reasonably be called a factor of production - though i think this tends to conceptually diminish human agency and reduce humans to commodities - but the means of production refers to the non-human factors of production.

What "owners"? Didn't all you workers just "take" ownership? So who is it you are all accountable to now?What is so hard to get?

u kidding?
Less than 6% of the world population own corporate stocks.

Oh, we are talking about the world economy here. Third world laborers and what not. When they provide a more valuable labor through education and technology, their wealth will increase as well.

yes, but 20% of those own nearly all of the total shares, with the remainded amounting to almost nothing. the easiest way to divide capitalists from workers (or consumers i suppose, though i don't think that's as good a term for it) is to see who owns the m of p to any significant extent and who doesn't. particularly, see who can live off of their ownership alone, and who must work to make a living.

Being a finance major, I believe that the willingness to accept risk and the providing of funds entitles them to the returns they recieve.

labor is not included in the term 'means of production'. it could reasonably be called a factor of production - though i think this tends to conceptually diminish human agency and reduce humans to commodities - but the means of production refers to the non-human factors of production.

I should have said capital, labor is the predominant form of capital.

Oh, we are talking about the world economy here. Third world laborers and what not. When they provide a more valuable labor through education and technology, their wealth will increase as well.
Yes I hope so. I think rich countries need to provide them with capital (education and technology). We need more international awareness and cooperation.

Yes I hope. I think rich countries need to provide them with capital (education and technology). We need more international awareness and cooperation.

I couldn't agree more. I personally believe that the building and and assisted facilitation of foreign economies, especially Third World, combined with an elimination of protectionism, will both boost our economy and relieve much of the diplomatic tensions we are going through (in both America and the rest of the Western World).

What is so hard to get? Who is accountable if the workers "take over"?

Whose responsibility is running the business now? If the business gets in Legal trouble, who answers for it? If the business starts losing money, who does and who doesn't get paid?

Who makes all these decisions now that the owner has been "ousted"?

Regards,
Gaar

Who is accountable if the workers "take over"?

Whose responsibility is running the business now? If the business gets in Legal trouble, who answers for it? If the business starts losing money, who does and who doesn't get paid?

Who makes all these decisions now that the owner has been "ousted"?

Regards,
Gaar

Too their defense, CEO's and owners are not really held liable in these situations either. But that is a government fault, not a system fault.

Who is accountable if the workers "take over"?

Whose responsibility is running the business now? If the business gets in Legal trouble, who answers for it? If the business starts losing money, who does and who doesn't get paid?

Who makes all these decisions now that the owner has been "ousted"?

Regards,
Gaar
The CEO is responsible for everything. Like now.
The CEO makes all the decisions.
It is just the owner which changes. Instead of distributing dividends to capitalists, you distribute to all the people according to their need (like you give home to the homeless and you give food to the hungry).

Yes I hope so. I think rich countries need to provide them with capital (education and technology). We need more international awareness and cooperation. We give plenty...

When is it that they become responsible for their own Welfare and their own actions?

Perhaps if some were to "thank us" rather than demand we "give more" we would be more willing to give a bit more of our hard earned capital. But they have no Right to just demand that we give it to them...

Interesting how the World wants to condemn us in one hand and demand from us with the other.

Not sure what type of response they were expecting, perhaps they should reconsider their tactics?

Regards,
Gaar

The CEO is responsible for everything. Like now.
The CEO makes all the decisions. And if the CEO was the "owner"?

I believe you just sent him packing...

You think anyone would be willing to step up to that job now, since it will be given only an "equal share" and also be "responsible" for everything?

Regards,
Gaar

We give plenty...

When is it that they become responsible for their own Welfare and their own actions?

Perhaps if some were to "thank us" rather than demand we "give more" we would be more willing to give a bit more of our hard earned capital. But they have no Right to just demand that we give it to them...

Interesting how the World wants to condemn us in one hand and demand from us with the other.

Not sure what type of response they were expecting, perhaps they should reconsider their tactics?

Regards,
Gaar
It is more complex than that.
Who is this big "us"?
I recognize that some people have been colonized and some people have faced natural disasters and I recognize it is in our interest of us all to help them.

Too their defense, CEO's and owners are not really held liable in these situations either. But that is a government fault, not a system fault. Only if it is "Incorporated", which many small Businesses are not...

But I understand the point, and you are correct. But someone has to "answer" for the Company and the results of such actions could "cost" everyone that works there, not just the person doing the representing. So whose interest does he give greatest weight to?

Regards,
Gaar

And if the CEO was the "owner"?

I believe you just sent him packing...

You think anyone would be willing to step up to that job now, since it will be given only an "equal share" and also be "responsible" for everything?

Regards,
Gaar

The CEO would obviously be paid much more than the simple laborer even in the communism most of these guys espouse.

A question for the communists, though:

How is funding acquired, and how are risk and investment decisions made?

And if the CEO was the "owner"?

I believe you just sent him packing...

You think anyone would be willing to step up to that job now, since it will be given only an "equal share" and also be "responsible" for everything?

Regards,
Gaar
And if the CEO was not the "owner" like in many corporations?

And if the CEO was not the "owner" like in many corporations? Doesn't matter...

You are the one suggesting the "change". If I can find even a small percentage that are hurt by it, then your change is not productive.

If it doesn't work with the Rights of the Individual on the smallest scale, then you don't get to apply it on a larger scale and question who it may be hurting now, I can show you all kinds of examples that would be hurt, but until you can address even the smallest of problems, looking at the larger ones is a moot point.

Regards,
Gaar

The CEO would obviously be paid much more than the simple laborer even in the communism most of these guys espouse.

A question for the communists, though:

How is funding acquired, and how are risk and investment decisions made?
I believe the (public) banks are responsible for the funding.

Only if it is "Incorporated", which many small Businesses are not...

But I understand the point, and you are correct. But someone has to "answer" for the Company and the results of such actions could "cost" everyone that works there, not just the person doing the representing. So whose interest does he give greatest weight to?

Regards,
Gaar

From what I understand, a lot of communists don't want to take private small businesses into government ownership. It is mildly confusing to me.

However, for failed corporations, the entire ownership of the corporation should be held liable for the losses, to the proportion that they owned. When fraud has occurred, those at fault should serve jail time.

Doesn't matter...

You are the one suggesting the "change". If I can find even a small percentage that are hurt by it, then your change is not productive.

If it doesn't work with the Rights of the Individual on the smallest scale, then you don't get to apply it on a larger scale and question who it may be hurting now, I can show you all kinds of examples that would be hurt, but until you can address even the smallest of problems, looking at the larger ones is a moot point.

Regards,
Gaar
Whatabout nationalizing corporations which are on the stock market (in other words, where the CEO is not the owner)?

The CEO would obviously be paid much more than the simple laborer even in the communism most of these guys espouse.

A question for the communists, though:

How is funding acquired, and how are risk and investment decisions made? Who decides how much more? Because if it him, he is starting to sound an awful lot like an "owner", to me...

Maybe you could explain the difference to me, because I am lost as to where you are going with all of this now, if you are going to admit that the person making such decisions and taking such risks should be rewarded for doing it.

Regards,
Gaar

Whatabout nationalizing corporations which are on the stock market (in other words, where the CEO is not the owner)? Again, until you can address the first question, anything else is moot...

If you do, then we can go on. Until then, you are merely trying to avoid the Subject.

Regards,
Gaar

From what I understand, a lot of communists don't want to take private small businesses into government ownership. It is mildly confusing to me.

However, for failed corporations, the entire ownership of the corporation should be held liable for the losses, to the proportion that they owned. When fraud has occurred, those at fault should serve jail time. So no one would ever Incorporate and there would be no Corporations.

Why would anyone start one, if it was merely going to be taken away from them?

Regards,
Gaar

What "owners"? Didn't all you workers just "take" ownership? So who is it you are all accountable to now?

i may be mistaken, but you seem to have answered your own question (at least for one possible form of socialism).

Do you think that, once your new business is successful, that the people you hired have some right to take your business from you because they work for you?

i think that all capital other than land itself is entirely the product of labor. and i do not think it is just for my new business to exist. businesses ought be collectively owned and worker run.

the reason a business employs people beyond just the owner of it is because it makes more money doing so. so if you owned a business by yourself you might be able to produce x wealth above costs. and after you hired some people the business is able to make x+y wealth for you (after expenses, including the wages set by the market). where did y come from, and why do you get it? you certainly didn't create it - you were only able to create x and you didn't do anything more than hire more workers. this extra amount of wealth the business is able to produce comes from additional labor. and you get it purely because you claim to own things; your input to production didn't increase, and any increase in expenses was covered by increased output.

so wealth that was quite literally produced by someone else's labor becomes your own. and you can use it to buy up more means of production (replacement and repair costs for the ones you already own are almost certainly written into your operating expenses). which in turn allows you to to accumulate more capital produced by other people, etc. this not only leads to grossly unjust outcomes (see the distribution of wealth in the united states), but started from grossly unjust beginnings (see the entire history of private ownership of land and capital). there is nothing to do with an unjust system but abolish it.

By it's nature it is exploititive.

However, there is much less exploitation then the collectivist systems.

i think that all capital other than land itself is entirely the product of labor. and i do not think it is just for my new business to exist. businesses ought be collectively owned and worker run. So why would any businesses be started? Who would supply the initial capital and the ideas?

the reason a business employs people beyond just the owner of it is because it makes more money doing so. so if you owned a business by yourself you might be able to produce x wealth above costs. and after you hired some people the business is able to make x+y wealth for you (after expenses, including the wages set by the market). where did y come from, and why do you get it? you certainly didn't create it - you were only able to create x and you didn't do anything more than hire more workers. this extra amount of wealth the business is able to produce comes from additional labor. and you get it purely because you claim to own things; your input to production didn't increase, and any increase in expenses was covered by increased output. And each of the workers were paid for their work, at a rate they agreed to be paid for such work and not to have to take on any of the responsibility that the rest of the business would be successful.

so wealth that was quite literally produced by someone else's labor becomes your own. and you can use it to buy up more means of production (replacement and repair costs for the ones you already own are almost certainly written into your operating expenses). which in turn allows you to to accumulate more capital produced by other people, etc. this not only leads to grossly unjust outcomes (see the distribution of wealth in the united states), but started from grossly unjust beginnings (see the entire history of private ownership of land and capital). there is nothing to do with an unjust system but abolish it. And they were paid for that Labor. They agreed to do that amount of work for the money that was paid to them...

I have said this many times now and am left to wonder why you continue to avoid it as a Subject? Is there something about this you don't understand? I am only asking because it seems that you are either directly avoiding the Subject or refuse to see it as part of the equation and I am wondering why.

Regards,
Gaar

Again, until you can address the first question, anything else is moot...

If you do, then we can go on. Until then, you are merely trying to avoid the Subject.

Regards,
GaarWhat is the first question again?

Who decides how much more? Because if it him, he is starting to sound an awful lot like an "owner", to me...

The owner that they are talking about is simply someone who provides the capital for investment. He doesn't provide expertise, he just provides capital. The CEO on the other hand is paid for the expertise he provides to the decision making process, and I would suppose he would be paid a fair market value for his expertise. I'm not really sure how that value could be derived under their system, but I think that's what they are going for.

Maybe you could explain the difference to me, because I am lost as to where you are going with all of this now, if you are going to admit that the person making such decisions and taking such risks should be rewarded for doing it.

Regards,
Gaar

I am as capitalist as you can come, and I believe that the risk involved with being an owner earns the return that they get. However, due to liability laws and shelters for corporations, that is not how it goes, many times corporate investment can be a no risk deal, and that is devastating to a free market economy.

As for the difference between owners and CEOs, CEOs provide expertise, owners provide capital. Sometimes the two can be the same person performing two functions.

Also, under a free market system, each should receive a fair return for each of their inputs, otherwise the company will flounder.

So why would any businesses be started? Who would supply the initial capital and the ideas?The capital is supplied by the banks, the ideas by people who have ideas. What is unclear?

So no one would ever Incorporate and there would be no Corporations.

Why would anyone start one, if it was merely going to be taken away from them?

Regards,
Gaar

That is a good question, although, since it is a voluntary decision to incorporate, I suppose it would be an involuntary choice whether to sell to the government. I also suppose the government would have to pay a sum that is more than the market value as enticement to give it up.

I always seem to find the appropriate Hayek quote:

"It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy."
-Fredrich Hayek, "The Road To Serfdom"

"So you say money is the root of all evil, but have you ever asked yourself what the root of all money is?"
-Ayn Rand

These are both appropriate because we are discussing the evils (well, moreover, the great things of capitalism) In collectivism, money has no value because it is created not by initiative, not by risk, not by hard work, but by state direction on what is the social good at the time in which the directive was made.

The capital is supplied by the banks, the ideas by people who have ideas. What is unclear? Why would anyone venture to put the two together if there were no reward for doing it?

Regards,
Gaar

I always seem to find the appropriate Hayek quote:

"It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy."
-Fredrich Hayek, "The Road To Serfdom"

It is ironic that, while this statement is true, the government is now using legal tender laws to control the people through the mints and banks.

These are both appropriate because we are discussing the evils (well, moreover, the great things of capitalism) In collectivism, money has no value because it is created not by initiative, not by risk, not by hard work, but by state direction on what is the social good at the time in which the directive was made. The "Collective" is said to supply everyones "needs" but who is it that determines "needs"?

And after people's needs are taken care of there is this little matter of people's "wants", and how are they addressed in such a System?

Regards,
Gaar

Why would anyone venture to put the two together if there were no reward for doing it?

Regards,
Gaar
Why would there be no reward?

That is a good question, although, since it is a voluntary decision to incorporate, I suppose it would be an involuntary choice whether to sell to the government. I also suppose the government would have to pay a sum that is more than the market value as enticement to give it up.
There is one simple and moral way to do it : abolish inheritance.

Why would there be no reward? Because I can get all my "needs" from the Government, why would I risk anything to change that?

I may do worse than the Government gives me, so why chance it? Why not see how much I can get for doing as little as possible? Then I would have more time to do the things I wanted, because my basics are "guaranteed" me, right?

Regards,
Gaar

There is one simple and moral way to do it : abolish inheritance.

This is where the whole problem lies with most communists, and what I have never understood or had explained to me, is why not have a capitalist system with more legal accountibility for ownership and a gigantic graduated inheritance tax?

EDIT: I would also oppose this idea, due to my moral views on property rights and the governments ability to take from its citizens. But it seems the best way to protect the free market while providing for the wealth redistribution they desire.

Because I can get all my "needs" from the Government, why would I risk anything to change that?

I may do worse than the Government gives me, so why chance it? Why not see how much I can get for doing as little as possible? Then I would have more time to do the things I wanted, because my basics are "guaranteed" me, right?

Regards,
Gaar
Why don't you feed yourself at your local charity?

There is one simple and moral way to do it : abolish inheritance. So now you want to take away a person Right to choose how their Assets are distributed?

What gives everyone else any sort of claim on the Wealth someone else has built?

Besides, they already have a "Death Tax" in the U.S., you just want to take it all now, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

the reason a business employs people beyond just the owner of it is because it makes more money doing so. so if you owned a business by yourself you might be able to produce x wealth above costs. and after you hired some people the business is able to make x+y wealth for you (after expenses, including the wages set by the market). where did y come from, and why do you get it? you certainly didn't create it - you were only able to create x and you didn't do anything more than hire more workers. this extra amount of wealth the business is able to produce comes from additional labor. and you get it purely because you claim to own things; your input to production didn't increase, and any increase in expenses was covered by increased output.

so wealth that was quite literally produced by someone else's labor becomes your own. and you can use it to buy up more means of production (replacement and repair costs for the ones you already own are almost certainly written into your operating expenses). which in turn allows you to to accumulate more capital produced by other people, etc. this not only leads to grossly unjust outcomes (see the distribution of wealth in the united states), but started from grossly unjust beginnings (see the entire history of private ownership of land and capital). there is nothing to do with an unjust system but abolish it.

You seem to have a false concept of business ownership.

The "Business" and the President are two seperate "persons", While the President (the owner) owns the business, he does not reap direct profits as the owner, the "Business" itself does. And he pays himself a wage, just as he does his employees (though, generally officers are payed by salary, that is, they have a fixed monthly "wage" regardless of hours worked).

The President, though, is the chief investor in the business, his own private capital is used to create the structure for the business, that is, field employees, equipment and materials. His job, in turn, is the operation and administration of the business, which includes the determination of course.

You can't simply disregard administration... (the reason "co-ops" are failing all over the place)... Merely possessing a "trade skill" does not equate to the capability to run a successful business.

SBO's, for example take massive risks, compared to their employees, and hold the entire burden of the company on their shoulders. It is by their lead, which determines the successfulness of the business they own. (Alot of SBO's have income from investments elsewhere, while their business stays in the red for years... while they keep pouring their own money into it...).

For example, I sunk 300,000 into a retail computer store four years ago. I still have not seen all that initial investment returned. Yes, the store turns a profit... And has more capital than when it started... But, I, as an officer, only get that initial capital back in small sums of salary. Top that with the fact that I actually did bench-work with my employees for the first two years. During that time my employees were making about 20.00/hr... working 40 hours a week. I was getting a agreed salary of only 35,000 a year, so basically, I was doing more work (administration+bench) while getting paid less than my own employees... More recently... I have increased my salary to 50,000 a year... (out of the initial 300,000, after 4 years... I am still short by 130,000)... That is, in this entire time, overall, I am in the red still by 130,000... Now, while it may be THEIR work... They are doing their work in a building which was bought with my savings, on furniture bought with my savings, using tools (many of which they couldn't afford) bought with my savings, and getting paid with what ammounts to money from my own initial savings... etc... Under your false ideals, you assume since that it is THEIR work... It is not, it is only fractionally theirs... most of the work (all the actual capital and work in settings up and mobilizing the business) is mine...

Communism fails, because it is ideological blindness... It seeks to disregard anything outside of the "product"... Completely blind to the fact that the "product" is more than the "labor" of the employees.

Why is it in "Communism" the "Workers Party" run by the Communist Elite, are eating caviar and sipping on fine wines, while the "workers" are standing in bread lines? Because, Communists realize that their system allows those in the Authoritarian regime to exploit the workers... It is replacing Feudalism with total slavery.

The advantage Capitalism has, is in the long run, anyone can change class, if they so wish to. Class distinction only exists by the capability of the person. There is no end differentiation between the "Employer" and "employee" as communists will attempt to tell you... The "Employer" just manages to "create" and run his own business, while the average employee lacks the capability or desire to.

The average bench tech, for example, does not want all the red tape, legal responsibilities, contract drafting, and all the other more annoying products which the administration spends their time involved in.

Why don't you feed yourself at your local charity?
Actually, I feed others at my Local Charity...

But what has that got to do with anything?

Oh, I know... You want to come take away all of my money now and make me live entirely off of what Society will "give" me, right?

Sorry, I believe I have worked for the money I have and will spend it in any way I see fit, thank you...

I am not the one espousing my Right to live off of the rest of Society here, am I? I believe that is your position here, not mine.

Regards,
Gaar

And they were paid for that Labor. They agreed to do that amount of work for the money that was paid to them...

they were paid the market-determined wage for labor, not for their contribution to production. the two are not the same. and agreeing to the least bad option doesn't mean the game isn't rigged. the entire system of capitalist production rests quite heavily on a number of state protections and past injustices. working at-will for an employer who has you under constant surveillance in largely dehumanizing conditions to earn less than the actual value of your work isn't something that would be freely choosen often if there were a realistic 'other' option available.

you might be interested in taking a look at kevin carson's studies in mutualist political economy (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html)

This is where the whole problem lies with most communists, and what I have never understood or had explained to me, is why not have a capitalist system with more legal accountibility for ownership and a gigantic graduated inheritance tax?

EDIT: I would also oppose this idea, due to my moral views on property rights and the governments ability to take from its citizens. But it seems the best way to protect the free market while providing for the wealth redistribution they desire.
This is what communists call socialism.
Communism is not about destroying the everything and rebuilding everything from scratch. Communists are socialists with a better understanding of history and who are conscious of the struggle of the classes. Socialism is about building something from the existing capitalist system in order to integrate all the wealth created by capitalism and bring it to the people.

*snip* Great post, and might I add...

Your employees were paid for the work they did for you, and to claim any further "ownership" of any of the things which may be purchased with Capital that comes in while they are employed is like saying they disavow any terms of Service by which they agreed to work for you and now want to claim ownership over that which YOU have built with YOUR portion of the Assets coming in...

By the way, I congratulate you sir on becoming the "Capitalist Pig" ;) You have become. It is thanks to people like yourself that others can make a decent living working for someone else and not having to have come up with the resources to put it all together, or worry about the day to day problems that tend to arise in any business.

I hope your Business prospers... :D

Regards,
Gaar

A lot of people equate capitalism (or capitalist-like viewpoints or policies, or just business) with exploitation. And I don't mean because there are exploitive capitalists. People seem to insist that capitalism is DEFINED by how it exploits the workers.

Well, I disagree! I'm not feeling too argumentative right now, so I'll just leave it at that.

There is a poll coming.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism as an idea, and in limited practice, I think it's a good thing, but the problem starts when capitalism, just like any other system, is allowed to run rampant, unchecked and unregulated. Thats when people start to get hurt.

Today in America, we see more and more regulations being stripped away, and as a result, more working class people are forced to carry a higher financial burden than ever before, workers hurt on the job have little or no recource of action, and others are paid next to slave wages with no hope of advancement within the company. This is where capitalism starts to fail in my opinion.

Long gone are the days when an inventor made a great new product and took it directly to the market. There is nothing romantic about today's predatory capitalism.

So now you want to take away a person Right to choose how their Assets are distributed?

What gives everyone else any sort of claim on the Wealth someone else has built?

Besides, they already have a "Death Tax" in the U.S., you just want to take it all now, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar
right.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism as an idea, and in limited practice, I think it's a good thing, but the problem starts when capitalism, just like any other system, is allowed to run rampant, unchecked and unregulated. Thats when people start to get hurt.

Today in America, we see more and more regulations being stripped away, and as a result, more working class people are forced to carry a higher financial burden than ever before, workers hurt on the job have little or no recource of action, and others are paid next to slave wages with no hope of advancement within the company. This is where capitalism starts to fail in my opinion.

Long gone are the days when an inventor made a great new product and took it directly to the market. There is nothing romantic about today's predatory capitalism.

No, regulations are bad for capitalism. We see more interference in our capitalism than ever in the US. I'm not even sure if any country has gotten anywhere near a true laissez faire capitalism in history. It would be nice experiment to see if it would work as theorized.

Actually, I feed others at my Local Charity...

But what has that got to do with anything?

Oh, I know... You want to come take away all of my money now and make me live entirely off of what Society will "give" me, right?

Sorry, I believe I have worked for the money I have and will spend it in any way I see fit, thank you...

I am not the one espousing my Right to live off of the rest of Society here, am I? I believe that is your position here, not mine.

Regards,
Gaar
What is wrong with you?
Can't you connect the dots here?

they were paid the market-determined wage for labor, not for their contribution to production. the two are not the same. and agreeing to the least bad option doesn't mean the game isn't rigged. the entire system of capitalist production rests quite heavily on a number of state protections and past injustices. working at-will for an employer who has you under constant surveillance in largely dehumanizing conditions to earn less than the actual value of your work isn't something that would be freely choosen often if there were a realistic 'other' option available.

you might be interested in taking a look at kevin carson's studies in mutualist political economy (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html)

Of course, the system you suppose does not exist. If you work for someone who does that... You find a better employer.

And the most dehumanizing work-places were run by communists... Because, now that they are "The Party" they can steal from their own to pay for what they want...

The actual labors in communism live in abject poverty, while the Party members live in virtual luxury...

And that IS and HAS been what Communism does in fact do.

You can ignore that fact all you want. The simple fact is, despite Communisms "lofty" ideals... Communism is nothing but a farsical lie perpetrated by people who want nothing more than to exploit their own far past the ethical bounds of the average capitalist...

Communism is a system which has been HISTORICALLY proven to not work... It could not even stand a century of operation without colapsing on itself.

No, regulations are bad for capitalism. We see more interference in our capitalism than ever in the US. I'm not even sure if any country has gotten anywhere near a true laissez faire capitalism in history. It would be nice experiment to see if it would work as theorized.
I believe there was a lot less regulations 150 years ago. No miminum wage, no inheritance tax, no child labor law, no social education, no social health care...

they were paid the market-determined wage for labor, not for their contribution to production. the two are not the same. and agreeing to the least bad option doesn't mean the game isn't rigged. Then start your own Business, like others have.

You made an agreement and now you want to take it back. Sorry, you have other choices and cannot blame others if you do not avail yourself of them.

the entire system of capitalist production rests quite heavily on a number of state protections and past injustices. working at-will for an employer who has you under constant surveillance in largely dehumanizing conditions to earn less than the actual value of your work isn't something that would be freely choosen often if there were a realistic 'other' option available.

you might be interested in taking a look at kevin carson's studies in mutualist political economy (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html) Funny thing is, we ARE the State. You don't like something, change it, otherwise you might like to see how it is that you can best avail yourself of its benefits while trying to steer clear of its detriments, much like everyone else does.

The "value" of your work was what you agreed it was when you said you would do it. If you change your mind, move on... You don't get to make some claim after the fact that you were worth more than you agreed to. All else is the "profit" of the person who supplied all that becomes "the Business".

Regards,
Gaar

What is wrong with you?
Can't you connect the dots here? I guess not, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me?

I stated my position fairly clearly I believe, if there is something you would like for me to make more clear you wouldn't mind being a bit more specific, would you please?

Regards,
Gaar

Of course, the system you suppose does not exist. If you work for someone who does that... You find a better employer.

And the most dehumanizing work-places were run by communists... Because, now that they are "The Party" they can steal from their own to pay for what they want...

The actual labors in communism live in abject poverty, while the Party members live in virtual luxury...

And that IS and HAS been what Communism does in fact do.

You can ignore that fact all you want. The simple fact is, despite Communisms "lofty" ideals... Communism is nothing but a farsical lie perpetrated by people who want nothing more than to exploit their own far past the ethical bounds of the average capitalist...

Communism is a system which has been HISTORICALLY proven to not work... It could not even stand a century of operation without colapsing on itself.It had failed in the past, but do you know any alternative?

Great post, and might I add...

Your employees were paid for the work they did for you, and to claim any further "ownership" of any of the things which may be purchased with Capital that comes in while they are employed is like saying they disavow any terms of Service by which they agreed to work for you and now want to claim ownership over that which YOU have built with YOUR portion of the Assets coming in...

By the way, I congratulate you sir on becoming the "Capitalist Pig" ;) You have become. It is thanks to people like yourself that others can make a decent living working for someone else and not having to have come up with the resources to put it all together, or worry about the day to day problems that tend to arise in any business.

I hope your Business prospers... :D

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, becomming a "capitalist pig" takes hard work and much labor... And lots and lots of sweat...

As for my employees... Not one single one wants to be in my shoes... They go home at a certain hour, when, many times, I am doing paperwork into the wee hours of the morning.... And if any one of them wanted to invest and become an officer, I wouldn't turn them down.

That's the wonderful thing about Capitalism, "Class" does not really exist... Any one of them has the capacity to join the class of the "self-employed" business-person.... Instead of having their actual "class" determined by the "Party" as communism does.

right. And YOU have some Right to all of it because?!?!?

Care to explain how someone else's hard work suddenly becomes yours because they Die?

Regards,
Gaar

I guess not, perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me?

I stated my position fairly clearly I believe, if there is something you would like for me to make more clear you wouldn't mind being a bit more specific, would you please?

Regards,
Gaar
Ok there is charity and you can just feed yourself there, but you don't, you'd rather work and have a higher standard of living and at the same time be proud of yourself. This is the evidence that a welfare system does not take away incentive to work. Is that more clear now?

It had failed in the past, but do you know any alternative?

Alternative? Free-Market economics.... Where people make their own choices, independantly... Where people can choose their own class, be employee or employer.... It's also called capitalism.

And YOU have some Right to all of it because?!?!?

Care to explain how someone else's hard work suddenly becomes yours because they Die?

Regards,
Gaar
Because they die.

I believe there was a lot less regulations 150 years ago. No miminum wage, no inheritance tax, no child labor law, no social education, no social health care...

Correct. And we now have a much more efficient economy that would theoretically eliminate the troubles that most of those laws were designed to alleviate.

(Although I believe in capitalism, I think education and health care should be provided for by the government. I am a very liberal capitalist.)

Alternative? Free-Market economics.... Where people make their own choices, independantly... Where people can choose their own class, be employee or employer.... It's also called capitalism.
It has failed 150 years ago.

Because they die.

And their death makes it yours.... how again? Merely because you "want" it?

What did you particularly do to deserve their wealth?

sic.... Communists want something for nothing...

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.

Did your employer give you the job that allows you to make that pie?

hmmm

If you don't like what your employer pays you, you may start your own business and CONTROL (Marx just can't reconcile propriety, can he?) your take of the profits.

Marxism stifles economic growth because it does not respect the RIGHTS of ownership.

Yes, becomming a "capitalist pig" takes hard work and much labor... And lots and lots of sweat... Well, when you are done, you don't mind giving it all to the rest of us and your decendents be damned, do you?

After all, we deserve it cause we work... :rolleyes:

Keep up the good work! :D

We'll try to keep the left wing from taking it all from you, but no guarantee's, we live in a Democracy after all... :p

Regards,
Gaar

And YOU have some Right to all of it because?!?!?

Care to explain how someone else's hard work suddenly becomes yours because they Die?

Regards,
Gaar

It can be addressed with the social contract. If you make all of your wealth through the benefits of society, you should be required to return it to society when you can no longer use it.

I don't believe, however, that the social contract should be expanded that far, and with government controlling whether you abide by the social contract or not, I think that it would be more of a forced regulation than an accepted one.

It has failed 150 years ago.

150 years ago? you mean when socialism first reared its ugly head to subsidize failing business? So the government could redistribute wealth to people who could not operate their business over red-line?

Doesn't sound like "Capitalistic failure" to me.

Correct. And we now have a much more efficient economy that would theoretically eliminate the troubles that most of those laws were designed to alleviate.

(Although I believe in capitalism, I think education and health care should be provided for by the government. I am a very liberal capitalist.)
I agree with you on the first sentence but not on the conclusion.
I believe our economy is efficient because of socialist progress (education, state investment in fundamental research, etc...). I believe we are still far from the end of history and I believe it can still be a lot more efficient. A lot of industries are mature enough to become public for the good of economy and for the people.

No, regulations are bad for capitalism. We see more interference in our capitalism than ever in the US. I'm not even sure if any country has gotten anywhere near a true laissez faire capitalism in history. It would be nice experiment to see if it would work as theorized.

LOL, it would work just like communism worked, which is to say, not at all.

You cannot run a mono-system and think that every facet of society will be taken care of. Thats why the world needs more hybrid systems that incorporate the best of communism, socialism, and capitalism. Only then will both the worker and the boss be satisfied.

Ok there is charity and you can just feed yourself there, but you don't, you'd rather work and have a higher standard of living and at the same time be proud of yourself. This is the evidence that a welfare system does not take away incentive to work. Is that more clear now? Yes...

And now perhaps you will explain how making something that is voluntary now, mandatory is going to make it any better?

I say you give more people the incentive to do less, not more. That you can point to people who already take advantage of such a System only reinforces my position that it would greatly increase the numbers we already see if we make it a mandatory thing to give to everyone "according to their need"...

And when is it you are going to tell us all just who determines these "needs versus wants"?

Regards,
Gaar

And their death makes it yours.... how again? Merely because you "want" it?

What did you particularly do to deserve their wealth?

sic.... Communists want something for nothing...
Not mine, ours. It becomes public, it belongs to everybody. What is so hard to get? I'm not Stalin, nor Louis XIV, am I?

LOL, it would work just like communism worked, which is to say, not at all.

You cannot run a mono-system and think that every facet of society will be taken care of. Thats why the world needs more hybrid systems that incorporate the best of communism, socialism, and capitalism. Only then will both the worker and the boss be satisfied.

Actually you are probably right, there are too many industries whose economies of scale would be prohibitive, and there are too many industries where profitability is not maintainable. But there hasn't even been an effort to get close.

EDIT: Since our economy in the US had reached maturity, the US has never been anything but a series of rash policy changes from Corporatism and socialism.

Well, when you are done, you don't mind giving it all to the rest of us and your decendents be damned, do you?

After all, we deserve it cause we work... :rolleyes:

Keep up the good work! :D

We'll try to keep the left wing from taking it all from you, but no guarantee's, we live in a Democracy after all... :p

Regards,
Gaar

My capital does to who ever I put in my will....

Be it other officers of my company, or my descendants...

A good chunk of it, actually, is going into a trust fund for my kids, which has already started... There will be little, but business assests to distribute (most of which will go to my partners), and the remainder to my wife. The kids will get trust checks for decades... To use as they see fit (for school or what).

LOL, it would work just like communism worked, which is to say, not at all.

You cannot run a mono-system and think that every facet of society will be taken care of. Thats why the world needs more hybrid systems that incorporate the best of communism, socialism, and capitalism. Only then will both the worker and the boss be satisfied.Socialisms integrates the best of capitalism already.

In keeping with the theme of financial freedom, people should be able to decide where the lion's share (after some necessary taxes perhaps... but nothing punitive) of their money goes when they die.

They earned it, it's theirs, and their wishes must be respected.

Would you like it if some light-fingered folks you never knew tried to steal your money?

Socialism in such aspect is a disease of depraved morals (it's okay to take someone else's stuff without their permission) showing little respect for ownership.

It can be addressed with the social contract. If you make all of your wealth through the benefits of society, you should be required to return it to society when you can no longer use it. My "contract" with Society is to look out, first and foremost, for my OWN Family so they do not have to...

Anything beyond that should be my choice as to what I support, just like Gates' gets to decide what to do with his considerable Wealth, he earned it and now he gets to determine how it may best help the World.

I don't believe, however, that the social contract should be expanded that far, and with government controlling whether you abide by the social contract or not, I think that it would be more of a forced regulation than an accepted one. Interesting how Socialist are often "adapting" ideals diametrically opposed to the very ideal of Socialism, and claim them as their own?

Regards,
Gaar

Socialisms integrates the best of capitalism already.

Which is exactly why I have found myself arguing both sides. I don't argue against socialism as an economic system (although parts are confusing to me), but always as a rights issue.

Because of the very nature of it, according to Marx. I make a pie, and my employer sells it for $20.00, but I only get a fraction of that through my salary/wages. Thus, I'm not being paid for the full worth of my work; my employer is garnishing his or her own profit from what is purely my own work.

That seems exploitave. It's just how capitalism works. Capitalism wasn't god-given; it's a human system, with flaws and problems, just like anything else.
But with this, here's the problem. It seems like the assumption being made here is only that labor went into the creation of the pie, but reality shows us otherwise.

We can first see the obvious, the materials that went into the pie, the flour, the sugar, the milk, these were not purchased by the worker but by the employer. The employer takes upon himself the risk that these ingredients might not be mixed correctly by the employee, that the employee might make a mistake, or that the pie just isn't attractive to anyone at the time, and as such risks losing money in these situations. The employer is compensated for his risks and costs for the raw materials that went into the creation of the pie.

Also, what is the worker using to make the pie? Certainly not his own bowls, mixers, measuring cups, ovens and the like, no the employer provides these items. The employer runs similar risks when purchasing these goods, called capital, as with the resources that go directly into the pie. The capital also runs other risks, such as breaking, getting lost and all sorts of other things. Thus, the employer is compensated for this risk and supplying the capital.

Finally we can see the failure to take entrepeneuership into account as well. If it weren't for the fact that the employer had cooked up this cray idea to hire an underling to bake pies to sell, acquired the tools required to bake the pie, and tracked down the resources required to make the pie. There is also a good chance he had to create the recipe and all sorts of other things.

We can see that the employer undertakes a large number of risks and costs in this situation. If the pie baking operation fails, what happens to everything the employer has put into the situation? It is lost, and is unrecoverable. What happens with what the employee has put in? He has received compensation for this previously, which the employer cannot take away. The employee need just go and find another job and his life is back to normal, meanwhile the employer will have to dig himself out of a hole, before his situation is even equal to the starting point. As such, the greater risks to the employer are recognized whent he employee comes to work for him, the employee freely agrees to receive a smaller piece of the pie.

Yes...

And now perhaps you will explain how making something that is voluntary now, mandatory is going to make it any better?It is not the same thing at all.

And when is it you are going to tell us all just who determines these "needs versus wants"?

Regards,
Gaar
who shoud do that in your opinion?

re: 167

Yep... aptly put.

My "contract" with Society is to look out, first and foremost, for my OWN Family so they do not have to...

Anything beyond that should be my choice as to what I support, just like Gates' gets to decide what to do with his considerable Wealth, he earned it and now he gets to determine how it may best help the World.

Interesting how Socialist are often "adapting" ideals diametrically opposed to the very ideal of Socialism, and claim them as their own?

Regards,
Gaar

It is very rare to find a socialist that doesn't claim the free market system. That is why anarcho-communists are so predominant. All they want is to set up an anarchy, which is the perfectly free market, only they wish to do it through communism.

I want the same destination as them, a totally free market and society, I just think that their plan for it is a violation of rights and is a very, very irresponsible way of reaching it.

In Socialism or Communism everyone still has to work. Otherwise it does'nt work, there is no free lunch in any economic system.

"From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen."-Robert Nozick


How is this not just?

God, I love these discussions. They always seem to be at least somewhat rational, and rarely get bogged down with emotion and one-upmanship.

The people taking part in this thread, (plus others like you who aren't around right now) are the reason I stay on NS.

the paradox is this:

While everyone still has to work, there are far fewer private-sector jobs since going into business is NOT LUCRATIVE AT ALL because of very few rights of ownership and punitive taxes.

Hence... everyone has to work, but there are fewer jobs because entrepreneurialism is squashed.

Comparatively (to capitalism), at least.

"From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen."-Robert Nozick


How is this not just?

umm... because it's THEFT.

Has no one here been taught, when they were little, that it's wrong to steal? That others' ownership rights should be respected?

Rather, giving should be encouraged... from the rich, to the poor. it should NOT be forced, however.

who shoud do that in your opinion? The Individual, since I can take care of my own need to eat, there is no reason for me to visit a Food Bank. Some who cannot, may need to...

If you are a true Socialist, you should believe that it is the Government that decides.

What interests me most is…

Most Liberals are taking offense to the Government taking more and more control of our Right’s and therefore Lives, and yet their very “ideal” is just that… Have the Government become the ultimate Authority over the People.

And yet they are complaining as that very thing is happening.

Regards,
Gaar

The Individual, since I can take care of my own need to eat, there is no reason for me to visit a Food Bank. Some who cannot, may need to...

If you are a true Socialist, you should believe that it is the Government that decides.

What interests me most is…

Most Liberals are taking offense to the Government taking more and more control of our Right’s and therefore Lives, and yet their very “ideal” is just that… Have the Government become the ultimate Authority over the People.

And yet they are complaining as that very thing is happening.

Regards,
Gaar

Most liberals are not Authoritian Socialists.

umm... because it's THEFT.

Has no one here been taught, when they were little, that it's wrong to steal? That others' ownership rights should be respected?

Rather, giving should be encouraged... from the rich, to the poor. it should NOT be forced, however.
I'm...confused...

Did I word the quote wrong? What I was attempting to convey was:

You may do what you will with what you have,

and you receive what you have by the free choices of others. (payment and compensation)

In Socialism or Communism everyone still has to work. Otherwise it does'nt work, there is no free lunch in any economic system.
Actually in the communist manifesto, there is one recommended measure which is to put mandatory work for everyone who is able to work.

Actually in the communist manifesto, there is one recommended measure which is to put mandatory work for everyone who is able to work.
So, what if they don't want to work?

Most liberals are not Authoritian Socialists. Then what type are they, praytell?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Actually in the communist manifesto, there is one recommended measure which is to put mandatory work for everyone who is able to work. What type of work? Who decides?

Regards,
Gaar

so... they'd put everyone to work, the hours and wages would suck, and the workers would form unions.

the need for unions... in a communist system. lol that's pfunny!

hahaha

Capitalism is inherently exploitive. It isn't possible for everyone to just own a business or share of a corporation and live off the wealth it generates. Someone has to actually work or nothing actually gets done. It requires workers who do the work that provides the wealth of the upper class. That is why it is exploitive and that is also why it can't simply be reformed.

Then what type are they, praytell?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Either they are not Socialist(ie just liberal) or Democratic Socialist.

The best way to run a centrally planned economy is to keep it seperate from the government in power. Like the court system is seperate from the party in power in the US, Canada or Western Europe.

so... they'd put everyone to work, the hours and wages would suck, and the workers would form unions.

the need for unions... in a communist system. lol that's pfunny!

hahaha

A communistic government would crush unions. For a communistic government to be maintained the individual must be oppressed, thus the human rights problems of past communistic governments.

Capitalism is inherently exploitive. It isn't possible for everyone to just own a business or share of a corporation and live off the wealth it generates. Someone has to actually work or nothing actually gets done. It requires workers who do the work that provides the wealth of the upper class. That is why it is exploitive and that is also why it can't simply be reformed.
Uh, no. Employees are paid to manipulate the goods that the employers provide. The employer receives more because the employer takes more upon himself. It is just, it is not exploitative.

Now exploitation can occur, but that is fraud, and fraud is not part of capitalism.

So, what if they don't want to work?
I don't know, what about they don't receive benefits?

Capitalism is inherently exploitive. It isn't possible for everyone to just own a business or share of a corporation and live off the wealth it generates. Someone has to actually work or nothing actually gets done. It requires workers who do the work that provides the wealth of the upper class. That is why it is exploitive and that is also why it can't simply be reformed.

Yes, cause the upper class never provides any labor or utility at all. :rolleyes:

What type of work? Who decides?

Regards,
Gaar
Useful work is the best. Who? What about the market?

I don't know, what about they don't receive benefits?
No problem with me. If you don't put in effort, you don't get the compensation of putting in the effort. Works same way in capitalism.

No problem with me. If you don't put in effort, you don't get the compensation of putting in the effort. Works same way in capitalism.
Indeed. It is the same thing (well except for those who have enough capital not to work). It is important to notice because some people may believe mandatory work is totalitarian, but no society can function without work.
In this case, it is important that a job is available for everybody however.

So, what if they don't want to work?

Better question: What if there is no work to be done?

Capitalism creates jobs through entrepreneurial ventures. Under socialism, entrepreneurship is squashed. Jobs are not created. But the population continues to increase. The same amount of economic resources are spread around to a larger population, and the general quality of life decreases. This is the obvious lesson from the collapse of socialism around the world.

PJ O'Rourke has a funny anecdote about a restaurant in the Soviet Union that illustrates the problem. The food is bad and the service is worse. But the illustrative part includes a single cash register operated by three people.

This is what happens when everyone is required by law to have a job, but there aren't enough jobs that need doing.

In keeping with the theme of financial freedom, people should be able to decide where the lion's share (after some necessary taxes perhaps... but nothing punitive) of their money goes when they die.

They earned it, it's theirs, and their wishes must be respected.

Would you like it if some light-fingered folks you never knew tried to steal your money?

Socialism in such aspect is a disease of depraved morals (it's okay to take someone else's stuff without their permission) showing little respect for ownership.does anybody else see the horrible problem that arrises if you outlaw inheritance? you basically are punishing the families of anybody who dies suddenly...a person who knows their death is coming can simply give away their money just before they die, but a person who dies unexpectedly would have their property confiscated rather than given to those they would have chosen. it seems terribly cruel to me to inflict that additional insult upon families who lose loved ones without warning.

The difference with capitalism is that everyone can have a job. It may not be for megacorp, it may not be a huge job, but one can create employment for oneself. Excersizing one's talents and skills to create something, or consult others independently is an option in capitalism. Perhaps you can even become an employer yourself eventually, with your own office staff and the like. Just so long as the good or service you provide is useful to others (a decision that others make when they choose to purchase or not purchase what you have to offer.)

The difference with capitalism is that everyone can have a job. It may not be for megacorp, it may not be a huge job, but one can create employment for oneself. Excersizing one's talents and skills to create something, or consult others independently is an option in capitalism. Perhaps you can even become an employer yourself eventually, with your own office staff and the like. Just so long as the good or service you provide is useful to others (a decision that others make when they choose to purchase or not purchase what you have to offer.)
You can have a job, but sometimes it is hard to find somebody to pay you.

No, regulations are bad for capitalism. We see more interference in our capitalism than ever in the US. I'm not even sure if any country has gotten anywhere near a true laissez faire capitalism in history. It would be nice experiment to see if it would work as theorized.Chile under General Pinochet, I'd say.

If you don't like what your employer pays you, you may start your own business and CONTROL (Marx just can't reconcile propriety, can he?) your take of the profits.At the time that Marx was writing, this really wasn't a possibility for the common laborer of his time. They were uneducated, lived in poverty, were subject to disease, had little to no government and legal representation and were subject to the mercy [hah!] of the bourgeois. That is unchecked capitalism, Frangland, and it is tyranny.

I don't know enough about capitalist economics, nor the socialist arguments against it, in order to throw up a decent argument; I tried, but obviously, my knowledge is lacking. I'm glad Free Soviets hopped aboard and took over, because s/he obviously knows quite a bit more than I. I suggest that those of you who continue to reference my rather poor scenario take a closer look at Free Soviets' posts; they're far more comprehensive.

I would remind those of you that the ultimate purpose of this thread is to debate the nature of exploitation in capitalism, whether or not it exists and, if it does, if it is moral or not. We're not talking about the benefits of communism or socialism or capitalism. There are plenty of other threads about that. This is about a portion of a system of economics. Though I referenced Marx, I only did so because it is from his writings that I have read about the economic flaws of capitalism

I would also comment that Marx was a man of great [I]foresight, and attacking him because of the failure of a system that abused and masqueraded as his system of economics is the same as attacking Smith because of General Pinochet. It doesn't make sense.

Some of you people need to relax.

I'll just leave you with this: exploitation isn't a bad or a good thing. It is simply a thing; how it is used and directed is what gives it moral standing. When a wealthy man employs an illegal Mexican immigrant at below poverty wage, it is immoral; that immigrant cannot possibly live at that wage, and is being taken advantage of. When the owner of a pie bakery pays his workers well, abides by health and safety standards and pays his taxes dutifully, then he is a moral business owner. Do we see a difference here? And how both can coexist in the same system?

does anybody else see the horrible problem that arrises if you outlaw inheritance? you basically are punishing the families of anybody who dies suddenly...a person who knows their death is coming can simply give away their money just before they die, but a person who dies unexpectedly would have their property confiscated rather than given to those they would have chosen. it seems terribly cruel to me to inflict that additional insult upon families who lose loved ones without warning.Giving away should be regulated IMO.

Politics explained:
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to
your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes both and gives you
some milk.
Fascism: You have two cows. You get to keep the cows, but the government
takes the milk, and sells it back to you.
Nazism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
Libertarianism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take
harmonica lessons.

No, regulations are bad for capitalism. We see more interference in our capitalism than ever in the US. I'm not even sure if any country has gotten anywhere near a true laissez faire capitalism in history. It would be nice experiment to see if it would work as theorized.

It worked. The experiment was called British colonial Hong Kong.

A communistic government would crush unions. For a communistic government to be maintained the individual must be oppressed, thus the human rights problems of past communistic governments.

Not true at all. A true Communism everyone would be equal, free and no 'government' in the way we understand it. Everyone would produce what they can and recieve what they need. As for rewards for hard work. Well, i guess there would be no monitary reward since there is no money. But there can be other rewards. Lets face it, we don't do everything for money. Its idealistic and a looooong way off.

Giving away should be regulated IMO.
well, no offense, but i don't think there's any point in my trying to discuss this with you. you and i have hashed out this issue in the past, and you already know my opinion of your stance.

Not true at all. A true Communism everyone would be equal, free and no 'government' in the way we understand it. Everyone would produce what they can and recieve what they need. As for rewards for hard work. Well, i guess there would be no monitary reward since there is no money. But there can be other rewards. Lets face it, we don't do everything for money.

A system with no government is called anarchy, and it would operate under free market principles... extremely free market principles.

The only way communism works is if there is a central authority that controls all means of production and distribution. This is the only way to ensure everything is distributed equally. And such an authority naturally lends itself to corruption and laziness. The "true communism" you suggest is a macroeconomic impossibility.

Useful work is the best. Who? What about the market? What Market? Who is running the Market?

Regards,
Gaar

Not true at all. A true Communism everyone would be equal, free and no 'government' in the way we understand it. Everyone would produce what they can and recieve what they need. As for rewards for hard work. Well, i guess there would be no monitary reward since there is no money. But there can be other rewards. Lets face it, we don't do everything for money. Its idealistic and a looooong way off.

A "true" communism, like most want to define it, isn't even a communism. It is anarchy, and communism is the most irresponsible way to go about promoting anarchy.

I don't know, what about they don't receive benefits? That can't be right... Everyone "deserves" something, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Chile under General Pinochet, I'd say.

I don't think someone as oppressive as General Pinochet would allow a completely free market, but he certainly respected and imposed a capitalist system. And the economy improved greatly because of it.

You can have a job, but sometimes it is hard to find somebody to pay you.
Yes, that's why you must have a skill or bit of knowledge that is useful to another person.

A system with no government is called anarchy, and it would operate under free market principles... extremely free market principles.

The only way communism works is if there is a central authority that controls all means of production and distribution. This is the only way to ensure everything is distributed equally. And such an authority naturally lends itself to corruption and laziness. The "true communism" you suggest is a macroeconomic impossibility.
The free market is impossible. You can't have the market of capital and the market of goods and services which derives from this capital free at the same time.

That can't be right... Everyone "deserves" something, right?

Regards,
Gaar
No! Not if they don't deserve it!

The free market is impossible. You can't have the market of capital and the market of goods and services which derives from this capital free at the same time.

Why not?

Yes, that's why you must have a skill or bit of knowledge that is useful to another person.
And that person must have the money and the will to pay you. It doesn't work if it is someone in the third world.

No! Not if they don't deserve it! Wow, I could swear you are now espousing Capitalism...

Maybe you could explain how it differs?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, that's why you must have a skill or bit of knowledge that is useful to another person.

Or just become a consultant, charge $200 an hour and give your clients nice vague answers.

hehe

I'll just leave you with this: exploitation isn't a bad or a good thing. It is simply a thing; how it is used and directed is what gives it moral standing. When a wealthy man employs an illegal Mexican immigrant at below poverty wage, it is immoral; that immigrant cannot possibly live at that wage, and is being taken advantage of. When the owner of a pie bakery pays his workers well, abides by health and safety standards and pays his taxes dutifully, then he is a moral business owner. Do we see a difference here? And how both can coexist in the same system?

Nonsense. If the illegal immigrant couldn't live at the wage, they wouldn't work for it.

A price is an opinion of the value of a good or service. An employer has an opinion on what your work is worth to them. An employee has an opinion of what their work is worth to them. If the disparity is great enough, the employee is free to look elsewhere. In the case of illegal immigrant workers, the evidence suggests they find the wages offered to be more than agreeable. Otherwise, why go to all the bother?

Why not?
Because if there is a mraket of capital, it means people can buy it and control it. When they control it they control the goods and services which derive from it.

Wow, I could swear you are now espousing Capitalism...

Maybe you could explain how it differs?

Regards,
Gaar
There are no classes.
People only get what they deserve, not what they are born to get.

Because if there is a mraket of capital, it means people can buy it and control it. When they control it they control the goods and services which derive from it. Yes they can, and that is precisely how fortunes are made and lost, it's called free Markets...

People have been trying to "control" such things for a very long time. The good thing about Capitalism is that it doesn't hide the fact that it does, and always isn't the "sure thing" you are portraying it here to be.

Trust me, I try to get more than my share every day, and I am not always as successful as I would like...

Regards,
Gaar

There are no classes.
People only get what they deserve, not what they are born to get.
Sure there are...

You have already said that some people are going to get more for their efforts, right?

Over time that difference will become apparent and the distinction will be clear and therefore an "upper class" has been made.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes they can, and that is precisely how fortunes are made and lost, it's called free Markets...

People have been trying to "control" such things for a very long time. The good thing about Capitalism is that it doesn't hide the fact that it does, and always isn't the "sure thing" you are portraying it here to be.

Trust me, I try to get more than my share every day, and I am not always as successful as I would like...

Regards,
Gaar
Capitalism doesn't hide anything, it is not a religion.

Psylos versus Urantia II.

I love hot troll-on-troll action. :D

-- sits back with bowl of popcorn --

Because if there is a mraket of capital, it means people can buy it and control it. When they control it they control the goods and services which derive from it.

For a free market system both the capital markets and the goods markets are free. No one can control the prices and returns on the stock market and no one can control prices and wages on the goods market.

Because if there is a mraket of capital, it means people can buy it and control it. When they control it they control the goods and services which derive from it.

So long as no particular individual or group controls the market, this is not a problem. That's where anti-trust legislation comes in. A free market does not imply a completely unregulated one.

Sure there are...

You have already said that some people are going to get more for their efforts, right?

Over time that difference will become apparent and the distinction will be clear and therefore an "upper class" has been made.

Regards,
Gaar
I mean an economic class of birth.

Capitalism doesn't hide anything, it is not a religion.
Yes, I believe I made that point or something similar myself, thank you...

Something you would like to add to that?

Regards,
Gaar

I mean an economic class of birth. So I should not be able to benefit from the efforts of my Relatives?

Why would I not look to assistance from my Family before I look to the Government?

Regards,
Gaar

So long as no particular individual or group controls the market, this is not a problem. That's where anti-trust legislation comes in. A free market does not imply a completely unregulated one.
Of course it doesn't.
It can't stay free if it is unregulated.
It would be like saying the law of the jungle is freedom!

Psylos versus Urantia II.

I love hot troll-on-troll action. :D

-- sits back with bowl of popcorn -- Interesting...

No substance, just insults.

Or otherwise known as Ad Hominem.

Regards,
Gaar

So I should not be able to benefit from the efforts of my Relatives?


And it works both ways as well. Indeed, one prime motivation for working hard and accumulating capital might be so that your kids can live happy, easy lives. Should you be prevented from giving to your children? Of course not.

Psylos versus Urantia II.

I love hot troll-on-troll action. :D

-- sits back with bowl of popcorn --

They have both been civil throughout this thread. You, however, have managed to flamebait in your first post.

How can you say capatalism doesn't exploit, none of you have to work 16 hours a day picking tomatoes in the 100 degree weather and only make 54 cents.
And no these people are not in some nazi concentration camps they are in my home state florida, they are working like slaves so you can enjoy your juicy taco bell tacos.
No, these people don't have the freedom to just get up leave and start their own business. They don't have the money to stay anywhere else, and they don't speak english and since americans are too ignorant to be multicultural they can't get any other jobs.

CAPATALISM EXPLOITS!

How can you say capatalism doesn't exploit, none of you have to work 16 hours a day picking tomatoes in the 100 degree weather and only make 54 cents.
And no these people are not in some nazi concentration camps they are in my home state florida, they are working like slaves so you can enjoy your juicy taco bell tacos.
No, these people don't have the freedom to just get up leave and start their own business. They don't have the money to stay anywhere else, and they don't speak english and since americans are too ignorant to be multicultural they can't get any other jobs.

CAPATALISM EXPLOITS!

Is it forced employment?

Psylos versus Urantia II.

I love hot troll-on-troll action. :D

-- sits back with bowl of popcorn --
I'm not a troll.

How can you say capatalism doesn't exploit, none of you have to work 16 hours a day picking tomatoes in the 100 degree weather and only make 54 cents.
And no these people are not in some nazi concentration camps they are in my home state florida, they are working like slaves so you can enjoy your juicy taco bell tacos.
No, these people don't have the freedom to just get up leave and start their own business. They don't have the money to stay anywhere else, and they don't speak english and since americans are too ignorant to be multicultural they can't get any other jobs.

CAPATALISM EXPLOITS!

Nobody ordered them to come here. In fact, they came here against orders to the contrary. They had the freedom to come here, and they have the freedom to leave. They also have the freedom to refuse to work for 16 hours and collect 54 cents for their efforts.

Illegal immigrants work at a large variety of jobs, many of them perfectly legal jobs that you might have tried to apply for, and include good-paying skilled-labor jobs like manufacturing, construction, and auto repair. That's because they bought fake IDs and social security cards for $300. Many have their own businesses.

You don't even begin to know what you're talking about.

As of the moment I took the poll 51.5% of people polled (+/- 0.25%) had exploitive as part of their answer. For once in my life I'm in the majority. [/preens] And according to Bu$hCo. I now have a mandate to commence the Revolution.

The fact that Bush won a popular election shows you how intelligent the majority is.

The fact that Bush won a popular election shows you how intelligent the majority is.

Touche :D

Naah.

Now, a system which takes the money I earned, to pay off another able-bodied guy who isn't doing anything... THAT'S a system that explots me.

The fact that Bush won a popular election shows you how intelligent the majority is.First off, the fact that you believe a "majority" of U.S. citizens actually are Registered to Vote and then actually Vote is just a bit disturbing...

And I actually believe what you say, it shows how much his opposition continued to "misunderestimate" ;) him and were beaten Politically by someone they consider to be so stupid. :rolleyes:

What do you believe that says about the side you seem to be supporting here?

Regards,
Gaar

First off, the fact that you believe a "majority" of U.S. citizens actually are Registered to Vote and then actually Vote is just a bit disturbing...

And I actually believe what you say, it shows how much his opposition continued to "misunderestimate" ;) him and were beaten Politically by someone they consider to be so stupid. :rolleyes:

What do you believe that says about the side you seem to be supporting here?

Regards,
Gaar

You are not qualified to guess at what I do or do not believe. If you ask nicely, though, I might tell you.

Did you have a point relating to capitalism?

You are not qualified to guess at what I do or do not believe. If you ask nicely, though, I might tell you.

Did you have a point relating to capitalism? Sure, you can hardly rale on against the System that is slowly taking over the World, can you?

Like it or not, Capitalism is supplanting all other economic Systems...

Regards,
Gaar

Yes I hope so. I think rich countries need to provide them with capital (education and technology).Why?

I believe the (public) banks are responsible for the funding.
Banks don't 'fund' anything. They finance.

Like it or not, Capitalism is supplanting all other economic Systems...Bleh. I wanted to leave this thread behind. But I do want to address this point. In the West - in Europe and North America, specifically, and South America to a lesser degree as well - Socialism is supplanting Capitalism. It's not the other way around. China is turning to the free market, as are other authoritarian states that have come to realize just how large the disparity between themselves and the industrialized nations is. But the birthplace of capitalism - where it was shaped and where it has flourished - has turned to Socialism in the latter part of the 20th Century. Western Europe, to a lesser degree Eastern Europe, and yes, North America, including the United States.

Capitalism, as an economic syste, does not exploit people, however, it DOES create an environment conducive to the severe exploitation of those who are not in positions that allow them to allocate and/or control available resources.

I will say this. Right now, Socialist Capitalism seems to be the best bet.

The US is a Socialist Democratic Republic with a Capitalist system, after all. Just got to clean some of the idiocy out of it, like how so many of the red states are leeching off so many of the blue states.

Capitalism is inherently exploitive. It isn't possible for everyone to just own a business or share of a corporation and live off the wealth it generates. Someone has to actually work or nothing actually gets done. It requires workers who do the work that provides the wealth of the upper class. That is why it is exploitive and that is also why it can't simply be reformed.

No business owner actually does "nothing" and merely "reaps off the labor of the worker"... That is the problem with the communist thought process. Business owners do their own share of the work. Though not in actual "physical goods" area. Their "share of the work" is all the necessary administration needed in operation of the business... And in its ABILITY to produce goods.

When one worker complains of overload, it is my job to find and field more workers... Which requires paying for advertisement, reviewing resumes, and fielding interviews (work), I need to make sure the new worker can work well with the existing one. If a worker is effecting the output of the product in a bad way, or effecting the productivity of other workers badly, it is my job to remove them from the process so it can keep functioning efficiently... More work...

I have to ensure their unemployment insurance is covered, their income taxes are payed, I have to field their insurance plans....

There is far more in the production of a certain product, than the work that goes directly into the product. That is what communists fail to realize.

Corporate "profit" is not automatically pocketed by the owner. Profit is used to expand the business (growth)... In effect, Mr. Smith the Owner, and Mr. Smith the President, while the same person, are two seperate entities.

People are, in general, stupid. (Don't e-mail me about that line, please...)

No matter what the economic system, there is always going to be some idiot out there working it to their advantage. Maybe even several idiots.

The only bad thing about capitalism is that people tend to think that it facilitates greed, when really, people are the ones who have tweaked the system to make it conducive to greed. It's not the system, it's the implementation.

No business owner actually does "nothing" and merely "reaps off the labor of the worker"... That is the problem with the communist thought process. Business owners do their own share of the work. Though not in actual "physical goods" area. Their "share of the work" is all the necessary administration needed in operation of the business... And in its ABILITY to produce goods.

i've tried pointing this out to Letila more times than i can count. on this very thread i gave a specific example of a person who "owns" and manages a "business," doing none of the "labor" to produce the product, but who is by no means cooling their heels and "reaping off the labor" of others. Letila, and several other folk around General, will never accept that a non-laborer may serve an important and worthy function, or that a person who builds and owns a business might possibly be working pretty hard to oversee their business. these realities do not conform to the world they want to see, so they will close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and holler until we get bored and leave.


When one worker complains of overload, it is my job to find and field more workers... Which requires paying for advertisement, reviewing resumes, and fielding interviews (work), I need to make sure the new worker can work well with the existing one. If a worker is effecting the output of the product in a bad way, or effecting the productivity of other workers badly, it is my job to remove them from the process so it can keep functioning efficiently... More work...

I have to ensure their unemployment insurance is covered, their income taxes are payed, I have to field their insurance plans....

There is far more in the production of a certain product, than the work that goes directly into the product. That is what communists fail to realize.

Corporate "profit" is not automatically pocketed by the owner. Profit is used to expand the business (growth)... In effect, Mr. Smith the Owner, and Mr. Smith the President, while the same person, are two seperate entities.
i'd be interested to know if anybody around General owns/runs their own business and also supports a drastically socialist (or even communist) model. i've yet to meet such a person, but General forum tends to have a very unique mix of people so perhaps there will be somebody around who fits that bill.

Capitalism, as an economic syste, does not exploit people, however, it DOES create an environment conducive to the severe exploitation of those who are not in positions that allow them to allocate and/or control available resources.

I would just like to say that the EARTH is an environment conducive to the severe exploitation of those who are not in positions that allow them to allocate and/or control available resources! It was not created by capitalism. The fact is that there are a finite amount of resources for everyone; time, energy, matter, and now money (which is a little bit of all three). By definition, if you aren't in a position to allocate or control resources - at least, better than any competing members of the same species and/or niche - you are open to exploitation.

In the natural world, that exploitation is the gradual or sudden stoppage of a genetic line. It's not always so harsh in the modern world. Even in supposedly capitalist systems. What some might call exploitation, *I* might call "found a job and lucky, congratulations, I envy you!" It depends, of course, but in capitalism there is consent, and choice, and your ability to weigh risks and benefits is key to your survival just as it always is.

Ignore this rant.